Go Back   Movie Fan Central Discussion Forums > Hobby Talk! > Misc. NON-MOVIE TALK forum
MOVIE FAN CENTRAL FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #201  
Old 12-05-2012, 10:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by creekin111 View Post
I always love it when someone looks at one social policy from one nation and that automatically justifies it existing in another. As if it won't effect any of the billions of other factors that make up a nation. Hey Switzerland has no gun control and encourages gun ownership and has virtually zero gun crimes. So lets encourage every citizen to own a gun. Lets do what they do because they can do it and it works.

Its like looking at the inside of 2 different clocks. Hey this one has a gear lets put it in that other clock even if you have to rip out all the other gears that make it tick. Or like trying to fit an auto part made for a Honda car to use for a Chevy truck.

"You 'make' your own people go into crippling debt". lol as if a gun is pointed to everyone's head. So many people just don't seem to understand the concept of force or value or supply/demand. Millions of Americans have no use for a higher education. Its no coincidence the longer our public education has been around the worse and worse it has become.
You managed to focus on a single line you don't like, yet there's much more important things there, most of dealing with priorities.

I'll say again - more people having a higher education is not a bad thing. It never has been and it never will be. You say it's no coincidence the longer our public education has been around the worse and worse it has become - I agree, but for different reasons.

The reason it is worse and worse is because of the increasingly low priority that is actually put on education. Now, we're at the point where it costs MORE for a WORSE education.

There's a lot of things wrong with the education system, but they can be fixed given a higher priority. But in no way does that mean the more people with no education, the better.

Aren't we supposed to be the greatest country in the world, huge GDP, etc etc? Yet we're 7th in literacy, 27th in math, 22nd in Science, et al. Who's #1 and how did they get there?

Finland is regularly ranked as having one of the best-performing education systems in the world. The country's literacy rate is tops, its math proficiency second, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, an international trade group. Students from elementary through high school are among the world's best in test scores.

A generation ago, that wasn't the case. In the 1970s, Finland's schools were among the worst in the developed world.

What changed?

The problem was attacked on all sides, says Pasi Sahlberg, a former official in Finland's education ministry.

The country invested heavily in teacher education, requiring master's degree-based, five-year qualifications instead of three-year bachelor's degrees. Child poverty was addressed (because poverty and education often go hand in hand, which is why a free education is so important) with meals, health care, dental care and counseling -- all free of charge for children. Finally, the system pursued what Sahlberg calls "intelligent accountability" that combines standardized testing with teacher assessment and school self-inspection -- with an emphasis on the teachers, not the tests.

You say we cant look at another country and just do what they do. I call bullshit. Obviously, there's a lot we can learn from other - better - countries.

If we spent as much as we do on education as we do on killing people, we'd be well on our way.



We're backwards, man. Look at the other countries with bigger red bubbles - Russia, Iran, Pakistan, China, etc. We're the only First World Country who spends more on military than they do educating their citizens.
Reply With Quote
  #202  
Old 12-05-2012, 02:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamjohnson View Post
You managed to focus on a single line you don't like, yet there's much more important things there, most of dealing with priorities.
That's because I already posted what I thought about them in my other posts in this thread.

Quote:
I'll say again - more people having a higher education is not a bad thing. It never has been and it never will be. You say it's no coincidence the longer our public education has been around the worse and worse it has become - I agree, but for different reasons.
Sure its not a bad thing but for different reasons. And use any excuse you want about our education system. As soon as this country decided to make thousands of other things in our country controlled by the government it began to make priorities and government is always terrible at that.

Quote:
The reason it is worse and worse is because of the increasingly low priority that is actually put on education. Now, we're at the point where it costs MORE for a WORSE education.
And again government is terrible at prioritizing. But if you want to look at "prioritizing" aka federal/state funding then take a look at the Newark school system for instance. They spend the most money per pupil in the country - over $20,000 per. And yet they are consistently amongst the lowest test scores in the country and barely graduate half their students. Lack. Of. State. Money. Is. Not. The. Issue.

Quote:
There's a lot of things wrong with the education system, but they can be fixed given a higher priority. But in no way does that mean the more people with no education, the better.
Are we talking about quantity or quality? You may think you can have both but when push comes to shove eventually government draws a line somewhere.

Quote:
Aren't we supposed to be the greatest country in the world, huge GDP, etc etc? Yet we're 7th in literacy, 27th in math, 22nd in Science, et al. Who's #1 and how did they get there?
Yeah we were supposed to but we have a zillion other things the government has decided to take over. Just cutting out the military or eliminating the Bush tax cuts aren't going to solve anything or even begin to solve things. Government will just find some useless other wasteful thing to spend on besides education.

Quote:
Finland is regularly ranked as having one of the best-performing education systems in the world. The country's literacy rate is tops, its math proficiency second, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, an international trade group. Students from elementary through high school are among the world's best in test scores.
And again comparing apples to oranges. I refer to my Switzerland gun crimes and laws & culture again. If you want gun control then look at Switzerland's gun laws. It works so that automatically means we should do that.

Quote:
A generation ago, that wasn't the case. In the 1970s, Finland's schools were among the worst in the developed world.
Because education doesn't exist in a bubble unaffected by the billions of other social policies and cultures that effect it.

Quote:
What changed?

The problem was attacked on all sides, says Pasi Sahlberg, a former official in Finland's education ministry.

The country invested heavily in teacher education, requiring master's degree-based, five-year qualifications instead of three-year bachelor's degrees. Child poverty was addressed (because poverty and education often go hand in hand, which is why a free education is so important) with meals, health care, dental care and counseling -- all free of charge for children. Finally, the system pursued what Sahlberg calls "intelligent accountability" that combines standardized testing with teacher assessment and school self-inspection -- with an emphasis on the teachers, not the tests.
Why do you think its fair that only rich kids get to go to private schools? Private school have more money per student in the same area as public schools. Why are you pushing for a system where only children of rich parents get to have access to the schools with the most money?

Quote:
You say we cant look at another country and just do what they do. I call bullshit. Obviously, there's a lot we can learn from other - better - countries.
Again look at Switzerland's gun culture and gun crimes.

And "better" countries? Better as in culturally better like as in less state entitlement minded? Maybe you've got a point there. We've been moving to emulate these countries for so long now that they're not only caught up to us but moving along side and ahead of us. I think there's a deep root in people's thinking that they want a one world government and new world order.

Quote:
If we spent as much as we do on education as we do on killing people, we'd be well on our way.

http://urbanpeek.com/wp-content/uplo...53271056_n.jpg

We're backwards, man. Look at the other countries with bigger red bubbles - Russia, Iran, Pakistan, China, etc. We're the only First World Country who spends more on military than they do educating their citizens.
Again you can't "look" at one let alone 2 ways a nation spends its money. Yes military spending should be cut. Also should that prove all the more reason why government is and has been incapable to setting priorities? How much more proof do you need?

Also we're policing the world (which I'm against). We're doing everyone else a favor. If we reduced our military presence around the world other nations would have to step up their defenses and pretty soon you'll see those education vs military spending #s there look like ours.

Anyway judging a nation based on comparisons between 2 programs of hundreds of thousands of programs isn't looking at the big picture. Cutting military spending alone just isn't going to do it. We have oodles of entitlement programs already. Millions of people who depend on each one are going to want spending on theirs to increase. No politician is going to have the balls to cut anything so nothing ever gets cut. Until spending get confronted let alone actual cuts are made nothing is going to change. Until then its going to have to be quantity or quality you're not going to get both especially in our current state.

How do we "boost" education? We've already seen that throwing hundreds of billions of state and federal dollars at it through years hasn't exactly done much. Some of the school districts that spend the highest money per pupil in the country have the lowest test scores and lowest graduation rates. So what do you do?

If I had my way, I'd get rid of entire Departments.

Homeland Security? See ya'.
Agriculture? It's been nice knowin ya'.
Veterans Affairs? That used to be handled by Defense. Why don't you take a walk on back there?
Education? Please.
Energy? That's a joke.
Housing and Urban Development? You've gotta be kidding me.

And again as for "defense" spending, that is a huge problem and that's part of the reason why I consider most Republicans to be a joke. They claim they want to reduce spending yet are more than willing to throw away taxpayer dollars hand over fist on overseas crusades and military bases all around the world. Hypocrites, hypocrites, hypocrites.

Government primary function is to protect individual property rights and our freedoms. Government isn't supposed to be a charity, a world police, an educator, a doctor, a investor, a retirement planner, a wi-fi internet provider, God, etc.

If you really want to see student improvement, open the government education monopoly up to private competition. Offer vouchers with the taxpayer dollars that would normally go straight to failed government-run institutions and even allow private companies to sponsor their own schools. You could have Coca Cola High and Taco Bell Elementary. I'm not kidding. I know it sounds shocking and repulsive on the surface and yes, Coca Cola high will probably try to indoctrinate the students into choosing Coke over Pepsi for the rest of their lives but who gives a fuck if it results in a better and safer educational environment? Seriously.

Of course, the biggest obstacle is the extremely powerful teacher's union as they know that a break from the government monopoly would essentially break them. And just look at what superintendents make compared to teachers. How on Earth those salaries are justified I'll never know.

Last edited by creekin111; 12-08-2012 at 05:27 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #203  
Old 12-05-2012, 10:15 PM


Damn this thread exploded.
Reply With Quote
  #204  
Old 12-05-2012, 10:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamjohnson View Post
No, definitely meant it for all. I had a pretty naive idea while ago, that we should be able to decide where our taxes go, or like maybe half. Like, at the end of the year, when you get your tax-bill, it says "You owe: xx,xxx.xx dollars. Where would you like it go?"

And then lists all the government-funded programs that exist - Department of Defense, Education, Health Care, NASA, etc. Then you'd really see a government by the people, for the people.

Government programs that were underfunded would just have to work with what they have, and I'm sure the ENTIRE other half would just be thrown at the military, like always. (You wanna lower the budget, you can start with the Defense budget, which is six times higher than any other country.)

It's not enough anymore to simply elect people and then have them lie about every single thing they promised in their campaign. It should absolutely be illegal for them to lie when speaking to the public, under penalty of perjury; furthermore, we need to outlaw government lobbying, so that corporations cant buy their way into Washington. It's legal bribery, and it's unheard of in other industrialized nations.
Just curious, how old are you? Your thoughts are not bad, but they seem inexperienced to me.

I agree with the defense budget. Been this way since WW2.
Reply With Quote
  #205  
Old 12-05-2012, 10:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jolanar View Post


Damn this thread exploded.
I have not read much of the last 20 or so posts, but it all seems civil, so I am happy. A mature debate of different opinions. I love it.
Reply With Quote
  #206  
Old 12-05-2012, 10:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Postmaster General View Post
But the immorality of using force when force is not necessarily still resides in those enforcing the laws. It's not just cops but judges and prosecutors can also exercise judgement in who is pursued. None of this is inherent in the laws themselves.
I agree the whole system is a farce. Look at democracy, if we are wise enough to pick our "leaders" since feel we have a fundamental understanding of the issues, and thus who should best represent our chosen direction concerning theses issues, what-the-hell-do-we-need-a-government-for?

Notice when you point this out to people(they freak out with the 'persnickety knee-jerky' dance[just preceding the hokey-pokey]), the entire idea of the wise populace, let alone "wise voter" goes right out the window. We are all of the sudden cannibalistic zombies. To further this contradiction, if we are all cannibalistic zombies in the end; how can we possibly be responsible enough to vote for our leaders? And notice you never hear this side of the issue.

Quote:
And sure, the gun in the room can be present in the example I used (a parent enforcing rules) -- That's been the cornerstone of any father who is meeting his daughters boyfriend for the first time.
Only metaphorically(lest you want to get in a time machine). That's besides the point anyway. The father doesn't have the legal carte blanche that the state has.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Postmaster General View Post
Perhaps ironically, I'm much more familiar in dealing with criminals, from both sides of the instigator/victim role, than I am in dealing with cops. I've run into more poor-judgement criminals than I have police. I've seen more people traumatized through criminal actions than I have seen through enforcement of laws. Again, I know there are cops who feel like they have a free pass but I don't think this is the way it's meant to be. It never was.
I agree. It used to be US(non-violent civilians & cops)-vs.-Them(violent criminals). And cops used to be peacekeepers as opposed to today's thugs who pray on non-violent civilians more often than not. But this "Koochie-Koochie-Koo" period of citizens & state is pretty well over, lest you have the influence and/or $.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Postmaster General View Post
Well don't take it like you are failing me. Maybe if you could just make the point in one or two straight up lines I wouldn't get lost amongst the metaphors and what-not. I find that more often than not, failures to communicate on the Internet are simply differing opinions on semantics and/or figures of speech.
Oh, I agree completely. I will run it by you another way in my next post if you still haven't warmed up to these ideas.

Quote:
For all we know, we agree with one another's point of view, just not the way we are voicing it.
I already know you agree with me(I mean that utterly arrogance-free). By engaging in non-violent, voluntary activities on here with me, or off here with your family(I hope ), etc. I know you are probably pretty opposed to any coercion in your personal life.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Postmaster General View Post
Now, I can't argue that the system is becoming more geared toward enabling dipwad cops over good police officers, via more laws equals more opportunity for poor enforcement of the laws, but I see minimum wage laws or tax laws as being among the least of our concern.
It doesn't matter. What is the inevitable outcome of too many laws? You get, a nation of outlaws; and ultimately a society without rules. Why? Because no one knows anymore what the heck the rules are(we're already gearing that way- the average person commits 3 felonies[or maybe its misdemeanors] a day without knowing it).
As an aside, THAT is what gives the word 'anarchy' a bad name right there and that is the kind of 'anarchy' that we all fear(and rightly so). But anarchy in its truest sense is not being subject to violent RULERS; and we all cherish(and would never compromise, let alone sell out) anarchy in our PERSONAL lives. But that can be an interesting subject of talk for a later time.


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Postmaster General View Post
I think civics classes might be severely lacking in schools today. I think it should be mandatory, and include a focus on dealing with the police. As no indictment against the police, I'd say it should be as relevant as teaching to look before crossing the road. It's probably because of my experience in dealing with police, as both a good and bad citizen, that's made me somewhat comfortable with knowing they may be around the corner
.

Either that or stop bringing police to cheerily talk statist jazz to children in classrooms thereby perpetuating that greatest of lies: "cops are your friends."

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Postmaster General View Post
As much as I hate to use COPS as an example for anything that should be considered reality (beyond TV), have you ever noticed the guys who the cops know by first name are the ones who are the easiest to deal with, regardless of the situation?
Sorry, I just don't see this anymore and if I do if is frankly manipulative on their(the cops) part.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Postmaster General View Post
Kind of an on-the-spot thought here, but can you imagine how much nicer things might be if there was some kind of law enforcement equivalent as a grade school open house night? People can drop by the police station, get some free snacks, meet their neighborhood patrol. I'm not saying this would fix everything, but like I said, it just occurred to me. It seems pretty redonkulous that things don't already work like that and does point more in the direction you are looking from where police/citizens is a rivalry-like relationship.
Well that would be too much work for them, I think. They'd have to take down all of their myriad quota tick charts off of the wall and this would lead to too much disorganization(and probably of their betting pools as well). As I told a police officer once after getting him to briefly slip up and concede that they used quotas: The first rule of Police Quotas is We DO NOT TALK ABOUT QUOTAS!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Postmaster General View Post
Still, the "threat of a gun" isn't the reason that speeding laws in and of themselves can be stupid. It can be said as a reason, but it's not the inherent reason. The way our laws are enforced would be the issue there, not the laws themselves.
But since you said you agree with the article; wouldn't you agree that the laws are setup for revenue and control and really have little-to-nothing to do with safety? So wouldn't they be stupid from that premise? That 55 disaster scenario is a good illustration of that inherent stupidity don't you think. Sammy Hagar really did tell a cop(well actually it was his girl while he was pulled over) when he was stopped, "I can't drive 55. Oh wait a minute, gimme a pen."

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Postmaster General View Post
But, a mugger in an alleyway shouldn't also be detoured by police carrying guns and prepared to kill. If someone threatens me with a gun in an alley, and a cop shows up an unnecessarily kills the criminal, that's not a reason that mugging people should be illegal. It should be a reason that the police need better training, a better force and so forth.
This to me is all moot because, well, did you know that according to the U.S. Supreme Court, cops are actually obligated NOT to serve and protect individuals from violent crime??? They are only obligated to protect and serve the state as well as themselves. Hard to believe?

Just so we cover this impartially, I'm going to present two sources which are on opposite sides of the spectrum to give you an idea that no, a cop is NOT your friend(let alone rescuer).

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/po...otus.html?_r=0

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1976377/posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Postmaster General View Post
I already touched on that in the hypothetical example of the son that dies from tetanus. It could go many ways. Most logically, it would end with me losing my license and learning a lesson in civics and in life. Or it could end with a judge giving me warning. How it shouldn't end is with teenage girls getting raped by Harvey Keitel during a routine traffic stop. That's just horrible. Things cops do are horrible, as are many other examples dealing with citizens doing jobs and practicing freewill.
I appreciate the humor but let's just admit that there would be further consequences ultimately leading to your arrest as you go on leading your life(maybe they formally send dressed collections agents over first B4 the paddywagon shows up). But then how do you respond to your arresting officers?

Last edited by Mr. Guiltless; 12-05-2012 at 11:48 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #207  
Old 12-05-2012, 10:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Postmaster General View Post
I think civics classes might be severely lacking in schools today. I think it should be mandatory, and include a focus on dealing with the police. As no indictment against the police, I'd say it should be as relevant as teaching to look before crossing the road. It's probably because of my experience in dealing with police, as both a good and bad citizen, that's made me somewhat comfortable with knowing they may be around the corner.
I think just treating authority figures with respect would cover this area nicely and it is the job of parents not teachers. Serves me well in life.
Reply With Quote
  #208  
Old 12-06-2012, 03:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Guiltless View Post
I agree the whole system is a farce. Look at democracy, if we are wise enough to pick our "leaders" since feel we have a fundamental understanding of the issues, and thus who should best represent our chosen direction concerning theses issues, what-the-hell-do-we-need-a-government-for?

Notice when you point this out to people(they freak out with the 'persnickety knee-jerky' dance[just preceding the hokey-pokey]), the entire idea of the wise populace, let alone "wise voter" goes right out the window. We are all of the sudden cannibalistic zombies. To further this contradiction, if we are all cannibalistic zombies in the end; how can we possibly be responsible enough to vote for our leaders? And notice you never hear this side of the issue.
I kind of see it as being, and obviously you see it this way too, that it is our duty as citizens to help our fellow citizens understand the system and so forth. For instance, if someone tells me that >51% is a majority in congress, I feel it's my duty to say that, no, it's more like >66%. If someone says middle class just means the people who make the median income, it's my duty to point out that there's more to it than that, and conceded I'm not able to fully understand the math behind the statement but that middle class is different from mean earners. I'm just pulling random examples that I've run into, so don't get caught up if you disagree with those and just do what my grandfather-inlaw does and say "I think you're wrong."

I think we, perhaps under the guidance of corrupt politicians, payed-for media, and other things, are acting corruptly by spreading false information and misinforming other voters. I may have unwittingly done so at times and I think everyone is guilty of this in some form or another.

I'm not sure where I was going with that but I think it had something to do with feeling it's not the system that's the farce but more like the players within the system who can appeal farcical in nature. And there's a lot of them, but I don't think it's the standard, just that it overlaps with people running the system and vocal citizens living within the citizen.

Quote:
Only metaphorically(lest you want to get in a time machine). That's besides the point anyway. The father doesn't have the legal carte blanche that the state has.
Well, I was really only scratching the surface of the metaphor. To be more similar to what you are saying...

My daughter brings home a creep and I lost my cool, because he didn't wipe his feet off and stained my rug that I got from a fellow named Lebowski; So I end up shooting him in my own home. My family does a coverup and we say he was attacking my daughter. Is my actions, acting immorally, an indictment against laws regarding protecting your own home? (i know this doesn't pertain in some states, but for the benefit let's say I'm in one of the states where it does.)

A cop pulls over a guy and loses his cool because the guy started making oink-sounds, shoots the guy and... you know where I'm going with this.

Again, I'm back to what I was saying earlier where corrupt individuals aren't an indictment against the system they are functioning within, unless that system is actively advocating for such things. That's my take on it.


Quote:
I agree. It used to be US(non-violent civilians & cops)-vs.-Them(violent criminals). And cops used to be peacekeepers as opposed to today's thugs who pray on non-violent civilians more often than not. But this "Koochie-Koochie-Koo" period of citizens & state is pretty well over, lest you have the influence and/or $.
Then where do we go from there? Dismantle the police force?


Quote:
It doesn't matter. What is the inevitable outcome of too many laws? You get, a nation of outlaws; and ultimately a society without rules. Why? Because no one knows anymore what the heck the rules are(we're already gearing that way- the average person commits 3 felonies[or maybe its misdemeanors] a day without knowing it).
As an aside, THAT is what gives the word 'anarchy' a bad name right there and that is the kind of 'anarchy' that we all fear(and rightly so). But anarchy in its truest sense is not being subject to violent RULERS; and we all cherish(and would never compromise, let alone sell out) anarchy in our PERSONAL lives. But that can be an interesting subject of talk for a later time.
I agree that too many laws is not a good thing, but only because "too many" is not a good thing. Instead, I would say that bad laws are not a good thing, not that any new law, adding to the number of laws, is immediately bad. When we say "too many" laws we are really saying "too many" laws we don't agree with. If there were the same amount of laws, and we agreed with all of them, we wouldn't have a problem with them. "Too many" is just arbitrary based on subjectivity.

Quote:
Either that or stop bringing police to cheerily talk statist jazz to children in classrooms thereby perpetuating that greatest of lies: "cops are your friends."
I was telling someone recently about during the start of "Just Say No" how the police came to our school and told us to turn our parents in if they did drugs. I'm not sure if it was like that outside my town but it was still fucked up.

Quote:
Sorry, I just don't see this anymore and if I do if is frankly manipulative on their(the cops) part.
Not totally. Recently there was something on the news about a cop shooting a mentally ill guy. I think had the cop been familiar with the guy, no one would have gotten shot. Even outside of cops, I've seen this happen - where they get called for disturbances and end up like, "Oh it's crazy joe! Hey joe, did you take your pill tonight." (paraphrasing) I think it's a good thing. I've never agreed with the concept of familiarity breeding contempt as being a universal truth.

Quote:
Well that would be too much work for them, I think. They'd have to take down all of their myriad quota tick charts off of the wall and this would lead to too much disorganization(and probably of their betting pools as well). As I told a police officer once after getting him to briefly slip up and concede that they used quotas: The first rule of Police Quotas is We DO NOT TALK ABOUT QUOTAS!!!
Yeah, the quota system is bullshit because it encourages the police to not use on the spot judgement. It trains them to judge on the side of us-vs-them instead of protecting and serving.

[quote]But since you said you agree with the article; wouldn't you agree that the laws are setup for revenue and control and really have little-to-nothing to do with safety? So wouldn't they be stupid from that premise? That 55 disaster scenario is a good illustration of that inherent stupidity don't you think. Sammy Hagar really did tell a cop(well actually it was his girl while he was pulled over) when he was stopped, "I can't drive 55. Oh wait a minute, gimme a pen."[quote]

We're kind of belaboring the speeding thing. I agree that some traffic laws, and many other laws, are unnecessarily, just not every new law. This is all in the context of McDonald's raising their wages. I don't think that happening will be raise the cost of living like others have said it would. I think McDonald's bottom line is well enough that we aren't going to go into a deeper recession over how ever much they decided to raise the price on cheeseburgers in response.

Just to show I'm not coming from some far spectrum here, I will say that raising wage demands on some businesses would be a bad thing. This is separate from my feelings on why we need decent minimum wage. For starters, I think the way the feds decide what qualifies as small businesses is slightly more than whacked out. As far as I know, it's based only on number of employees - at least in terms of civil right laws, so I would assume tax codes treat it the same way. I'm not 100% on this, but even if we are just looking at rights, it really shouldn't be based on the number of employees but a number of factors including revenue, interstate-trading and other stuff I'd only know more about if I cared more to fight it.

Quote:
This to me is all moot because, well, did you know that according to the U.S. Supreme Court, cops are actually obligated NOT to serve and protect individuals from violent crime??? They are only obligated to protect and serve the state as well as themselves. Hard to believe?

Just so we cover this impartially, I'm going to present two sources which are on opposite sides of the spectrum to give you an idea that no, a cop is NOT your friend(let alone rescuer).

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/po...otus.html?_r=0

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1976377/posts
I only read the headline of the first article because I know what you are talking about. It doesn't really change my point because a cop would have to be an asshole to not help someone, even if they did fear legal retaliation. A fireman can also choose to not rescue someone from a building. An EMT can choose to not treat someone. It goes on and on. There are all sorts of ways for people to be assholes.

(and if I'm being an asshole for not diving into the articles and therefore missing the point there, I apologize - doesn't mean this conversation is shouldn't be happening - just set me straight)

Quote:
But then how do you respond to your arresting officers?
Okay let's just put this hypothetical scenario to an end...

If the police came to my door to serve me for not paying a fine and, let's say, missing a court date. Here's how I'd respond: I'd put on really loud industrial metal music, answer the door butt-ass naked, my body in warpaint, while brandishing a shotgun and screaming a mix of "Get off my property!" and "Jfor Waco!"

Hopefully the police will have been to my house before and remember that I'm just upset because of the split season of Breaking Bad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
I think just treating authority figures with respect would cover this area nicely and it is the job of parents not teachers. Serves me well in life.
Well, I was saying that in context of "dealing" with the police in terms of knowing your rights. I agree that the respecting others thing would be better left at home, (while adding) or at least in kindergarten, maybe at the most through example in school rules. I don't think there should be a focus on how to be nice to police.
Reply With Quote
  #209  
Old 12-06-2012, 11:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Postmaster General View Post
I'm not sure where I was going with that but I think it had something to do with feeling it's not the system that's the farce but more like the players within the system who can appeal farcical in nature. And there's a lot of them, but I don't think it's the standard, just that it overlaps with people running the system and vocal citizens living within the citizen.
I'm in a rush this evening; so let's just say that this will be addressed below.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Postmaster General View Post
Well, I was really only scratching the surface of the metaphor. To be more similar to what you are saying...

My daughter brings home a creep and I lost my cool, because he didn't wipe his feet off and stained my rug that I got from a fellow named Lebowski; So I end up shooting him in my own home. My family does a coverup and we say he was attacking my daughter. Is my actions, acting immorally, an indictment against laws regarding protecting your own home? (i know this doesn't pertain in some states, but for the benefit let's say I'm in one of the states where it does.)

A cop pulls over a guy and loses his cool because the guy started making oink-sounds, shoots the guy and... you know where I'm going with this.

Again, I'm back to what I was saying earlier where corrupt individuals aren't an indictment against the system they are functioning within, unless that system is actively advocating for such things. That's my take on it.
And my take is that laws(opinions with guns) create corruption and corruption engenders laws. Legislatures are very dangerous places which for obvious reasons is why you or I would never want to become politicians. Like the One Ring in Gandalf's hand, such power to force others to do what we think is right would be too seductive and subject to changing us for the worst.

There's still a few problems with your metaphor. It's not just the legal carte blanche and I should have stated the other side of the package that goes with it, the monopoly on violence; or more to the point, the kid can fight back against the dad in theory, as can the man in the alley against the criminal. But you simply cannot fight back let alone say that you will never date the dad's daughter again and walk out of the house when you are dealing with the state.

Also, I think it's fair to say that a family coverup vs. a government coverup is a galaxy of difference. One of them actually specializes in, shall we say, containment. And there are no blood ties to keep the other loyalists from erasing the disloyal.

It really is apples and baseballs. I think you get the gist even as I am rushing this and not getting in too much deeper.


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Postmaster General View Post
Then where do we go from there? Dismantle the police force?
Yes and no. Please see the short article below on the history on how police got to be like this and why they are so misunderstood as people to protect us. I think it will answer many of your questions while citing my answer to your above question(while bringing it all) in a much more cohesive form that(my answer is) it would be better if they(police) were private and competing.


Quote:
I agree that too many laws is not a good thing, but only because "too many" is not a good thing. Instead, I would say that bad laws are not a good thing, not that any new law, adding to the number of laws, is immediately bad. When we say "too many" laws we are really saying "too many" laws we don't agree with. If there were the same amount of laws, and we agreed with all of them, we wouldn't have a problem with them. "Too many" is just arbitrary based on subjectivity.
I think when you have a federal registry that is hundreds of thousands of laws thick(when all you really need is the Non-Aggression Principle respected, is too much period). Especially when congress is creating a new crime every week, or month(I forget which). Too many opinions with guns is never a good thing, "good law" or bad law. And yeah, I agree it gets arbitrary that way. "The problem is not the abuse of power, it is the power to abuse."

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Postmaster General View Post
I was telling someone recently about during the start of "Just Say No" how the police came to our school and told us to turn our parents in if they did drugs. I'm not sure if it was like that outside my town but it was still fucked up.
That's sick; but I definitely buy it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Postmaster General View Post
Not totally. Recently there was something on the news about a cop shooting a mentally ill guy. I think had the cop been familiar with the guy, no one would have gotten shot. Even outside of cops, I've seen this happen - where they get called for disturbances and end up like, "Oh it's crazy joe! Hey joe, did you take your pill tonight." (paraphrasing) I think it's a good thing. I've never agreed with the concept of familiarity breeding contempt as being a universal truth.
I have and have experienced it firsthand where all that first name stuff just becomes further tools for their warrentless and illegitimate derision and condescension. Or remember what happened to Leon in the movie Unlawful Entry(1992)? A movie I know; but you get the premise implied about a cop using a cop-"regular"'s routine against him when it suited him? Hardly far-fetched in today's clime.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Postmaster General View Post
Yeah, the quota system is bullshit because it encourages the police to not use on the spot judgement. It trains them to judge on the side of us-vs-them instead of protecting and serving.
Almost all based on generating revenue. That isn't something that is just bad concerning certain individual cops. That's just flat out bad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Postmaster General View Post
We're kind of belaboring the speeding thing. I agree that some traffic laws, and many other laws, are unnecessarily, just not every new law. This is all in the context of McDonald's raising their wages. I don't think that happening will be raise the cost of living like others have said it would. I think McDonald's bottom line is well enough that we aren't going to go into a deeper recession over how ever much they decided to raise the price on cheeseburgers in response.
I think it certainly will escalate inflation as other fast food places will most probably and quickly follow suit. I'm just guessing here though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Postmaster General View Post
Just to show I'm not coming from some far spectrum here, I will say that raising wage demands on some businesses would be a bad thing. This is separate from my feelings on why we need decent minimum wage. For starters, I think the way the feds decide what qualifies as small businesses is slightly more than whacked out. As far as I know, it's based only on number of employees - at least in terms of civil right laws, so I would assume tax codes treat it the same way. I'm not 100% on this, but even if we are just looking at rights, it really shouldn't be based on the number of employees but a number of factors including revenue, interstate-trading and other stuff I'd only know more about if I cared more to fight it.
Same here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Postmaster General View Post
I only read the headline of the first article because I know what you are talking about. It doesn't really change my point because a cop would have to be an asshole to not help someone, even if they did fear legal retaliation. A fireman can also choose to not rescue someone from a building. An EMT can choose to not treat someone. It goes on and on. There are all sorts of ways for people to be assholes.
Here is how it got to be this way with our heroes, I mean law enforcement:

What, Then, Is the Purpose of the Police?

The American legal system is rooted in English common law, and the modern American policeman harkens back to English sheriffs, who were paid by and accountable to the government, not to the community. The main purpose of the sheriff was to enforcement what were called "government decisions." Maintaining public order was also a concern, but "order" was defined by the government.

Late 18th-century England is the specific period of history in which the modern American police force is rooted. England was then developing into a modern nation-state and many of the institutions we recognize today were being launched. One of the first "police bills" was suggested in 1785 by Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger. It would have established a tax-funded police force with jurisdiction over London; the bill was defeated. But in 1786, the English instituted a centralized municipally funded police force in Dublin, Ireland, with the explicit purpose of quashing "disorder." In the wake of the 1799 rebellion in Ireland, the police force was further centralized and strengthened.

In this as in other social measures, Ireland acted as a testing ground for what would later become policy in England. For example, the English imposed state-supported hospitals in Ireland long before they existed in Britain. The establishment of the modern police force in Ireland was completed in 1814 under Robert Peel, chief secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, who established the Peace Preservation Police. Peel explained that the police were a "paramilitary force" — that is, it was military in both organization and training. True to their name, the purpose of the police was to preserve the peace against disruptive elements — that is, against rebellious native Irishmen.

In his essay "'Call the COPS' — But Not the Police: Voluntaryism and Protective Agencies in Historical Perspective," libertarian Carl Watner described England as becoming "more receptive" to the idea of modern police force so that by 1829, Peel — now Home Secretary for England — was able to persuade Parliament to accept his proposal for a single government-controlled police for London; the new Metropolitan Police [was] … a tamer, anglicized version of the police he had established earlier in Ireland.

What had changed since 1785? At least two factors weighed heavily. In his book Police and Protest in England and Ireland 1780–1850 (1988), Stanley H. Palmer described one of them:

[T]he experience of organizing and recruiting the Irish police undoubtedly informed a central English political elite of the feasibility of police, their usefulness in times of disorder, the advantages of disciplined professionalism. (p. 376)

In their book Criminal justice: an introduction to philosophies, theories and practice (2004), Ian Marsh, John Cochrane, and Gaynor Melville described a second factor:

Why did the modern police force emerge at this time — at the beginning of the 19th century? Until then the threat to individual liberty had been used as an argument against organized policing. However, the coming of industrial capitalism led to large numbers of impoverished workers — unemployed or poorly employed — moving to the expanding urban centers. This, along with the general population growth, led to a fear … of the "dangerous classes." (p.135)

In short, the roots of the modern police force in England, as in Ireland, came from a perceived need for social control.

As in England, so too in America. Peel's model was largely adopted by American cities during the 19th century. As Carl Watner pointed out,

One of the dominant themes in the history of police in the United States has been the struggle over which political faction would control the police. Under the U.S. Constitution, police power was not a federal responsibility, but rather an obligation of either the state, county, or local governments. Since control over the police was a local responsibility, it had to vacillate "between city or state elective authorities. Thus, nowhere was the embrace of police and politics tighter than in the United States."

Why do Americans persist in believing that policemen are there to protect them?

One reason: Unlike most nations, America has historical precedent for the belief. It is called the Old West. As Terry L. Anderson and P.J. Hill explained in their essay "An American Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism: The Not So Wild, Wild West," the image of the Western town sheriff that is epitomized by Marshal Dillon is one of a private police force that did protect people and property. They wrote,

The West during this time is often perceived as a place of great chaos, with little respect for property or life. Our research indicates that this was not the case; property rights were protected, and civil order prevailed. Private agencies provided the necessary basis for an orderly society in which property was protected and conflicts were resolved.

These agencies often did not qualify as governments because they did not have a legal monopoly on "keeping order." They soon discovered that "warfare" was a costly way of resolving disputes and lower-cost methods of settlement (arbitration, courts, etc.) resulted. In summary, this paper argues that a characterization of the American West as chaotic would appear to be incorrect.

Anderson and Hill provide a compelling revisionist view of "the Wild West" that accords with how it is portrayed in Zane Grey novels. They write,

Recently, however, more careful examinations of the conditions that existed cause one to doubt the accuracy of this perception. In his book, Frontier Violence: Another Look, W. Eugene Hollon stated that he believed "that the Western frontier was a far more civilized, more peaceful, and safer place than American society is today."[12] The legend of the "wild, wild West" lives on despite Robert Dykstra's finding that in five of the major cattle towns (Abilene, Ellsworth, Wichita, Dodge City, and Caldwell) for the years from 1870 to 1885, only 45 homicides were reported — an average of 1.5 per cattle-trading season.[13]

In Abilene, supposedly one of the wildest of the cow towns, "nobody was killed in 1869 or 1870. In fact, nobody was killed until the advent of officers of the law, employed to prevent killings."[14]

At one time, a significant portion of what is now America was protected by private policemen who were paid by — and, so, responsible to — the community where they served. The Western sheriffs did protect people and property; they did rescue schoolmarms and punish cattle rustlers. Their mission was to keep the peace by preventing violence.

Modern policemen still bask in the glow of that legacy even as they betray it by taking state salaries and institutionalizing an indifference for the person and property of those they purport to serve. The modern policeman is, in fact, the antithesis of Marshal Dillon and an expression of the stereotypical British sheriff — a civil servant responsible only to government and governmental policy.
Conclusion

And so, the real message of the Gonzales tragedy is this: Protect yourself, because the police are not paid to care.


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Postmaster General View Post
Okay let's just put this hypothetical scenario to an end...

If the police came to my door to serve me for not paying a fine and, let's say, missing a court date. Here's how I'd respond: I'd put on really loud industrial metal music, answer the door butt-ass naked, my body in warpaint, while brandishing a shotgun and screaming a mix of "Get off my property!" and "Jfor Waco!"

Hopefully the police will have been to my house before and remember that I'm just upset because of the split season of Breaking Bad.
And if they don't and you don't put down the gun, you will be shot. Glad that is finally settled(I mean that non-sarcastically).
Reply With Quote
  #210  
Old 12-08-2012, 02:36 AM

^Another great post.

I think our exchanges have been a great example of a discussion, in comparison to what I see too often on forums where it's just people trying to debate. We're actually just sharing perspectives instead of trying to shut each other's down, and that's pretty much what got me interested in forums to begin with. This felt very "old school" to me, so I really appreciate the time you took to address everything I wrote and the thoughtfulness you showed.

As for everything you said in the post. You're just fucking wrong. Haha.

No, for real, you did give me some time to see things another way and I appreciate that. I'm not going to counter-respond to everything you said above because I think we agree on a lot of fundamental issues dealing with how Washington operates. I'd rather reserve the energy we are spending here, in essentially a two person back and forth, toward another thread with more people active.

All that said, and in all truthfulness, in terms of McDonald's, all I really want is for them to bring back the, or an equivalent of, the McD.L.T.
Reply With Quote
  #211  
Old 12-08-2012, 02:57 PM
Thanks^ and I totally agree about the "old school" thing. Flame wars were fun in my 20's; but yet I still figured out a way to have a discussion. Rational men who seek the truth, like you and I, demonstrate that you can express passion(not to mention, humor) for ideas without losing cooler sights on the constructs of those ideas.

As for McDonalds, I'm just pissed that they got rid of my favorite sauce for Chicken McNuggets. Bring back the Pure Honey and all the old ones. Stop making everything catered around the ideal of buffalo wings. Unless they are going to go the Hooter's route. Then they can pay a higher wage for the right reason.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump