magekillr

Agreed with Hitchens. I share a lot of agreements with Nasrallah. Unfortunately, while Hasan Nasrallah champions resistance to occupation, he also defends and glorifies tools of foreign occupation under different circumstances. He also cannot tell us why he can support the uprising in Tunisia, Egypt, and Bahrain...yet not in Syria. The answer is simple: pure sectarian solidarity. He's a douchebag racist.

Here's a good primer on the psychology of riots: More: Riot Psychology

The protest that occurred after Mark Duggan died WAS a legitimate protest and deserves our support because his family have a right to answers and the police need to be held to account. People using his death as an excuse to loot, vandalize and terrorize has bugger all to do with politics. HOWEVER...I don't see it as a black and white issue. We need to ask ourselves what's in these kids' (and it is mostly young teenagers - mid twenties) heads that they're willing to risk prison for the sake of a new pair of trainers. There's really deeply ingrained societal issues with people coming out of school with no education and no employment prospects. They're just perceiving their lives as school ---> prison and their loyalty is to a gang rather than to wider society or family. We can't excuse their behaviour for one second. Law and order NEEDS to be restored and law abiding people need to feel safe, but we need to understand the deeper reasons of why this is happening because tougher policing on its own won't solve anything; and if it doesn't go hand in hand with reform of the prison system, more investment in schools, job creation etc it will be counter-productive as it will create an 'us against them' mentality. We need to avoid tarring all these kids with the same brush. A 25 year old that commits a pre-meditated violent crime isn't the same as a 12 year old copying his older brothers. A lot of these kids can be reached if the government and society is willing to put the effort in. I think it's got a lot more to do with lack of prospects and inequality rather than real poverty. There's a good welfare system in the UK so these kids aren't really poor by international standards. But, the reason they have these nice trainers and nice phones etc is usually because they're living at home and don't save money. They don't have the mentality of 'I want to move to a nicer area, get a mortgage etc'; they don't set themselves up with long term goals. Any money they get goes on material stuff to show status. Especially in London you have very rich areas cheek to jowl with very poor areas. If you're wearing cheap clothes you mark yourself out as being poor. and there's a massive stigma attached to that. Mix that in with the peer pressure of having your main source of affirmation being other people with the same outlook and it's a poisonous situation. There's a lot of sociological studies showing that perceived inequality is one of the main causes of crime. The behaviour of these kids is disgraceful and needs to be punished of course - but we can't just ignore their anger because it's manifesting itself as incompetent unfocused rage. We do need to admit that a society where one community survives on benefits whilst another has wages many multiples of the national average is a recipe for this kind of disorder.

John Derbyshire is a major douche: Let Britain Burn

Shooting at masses of people because some of them are looting would be a great way to shoot innocent people trying to make their way home or to work or school, or watching/photographing the tumult, or protesting legally & peacefully, or whatever. I suspect that's the reason civilized countries are often hesitant to start shooting at looters. It seems likely to me that a policy of simply shooting looters in crowded urban areas would lead to a lot of injuries and deaths of people who were not looting. I am also skeptical that it would calm the riots down.

One of my London sources tells me, "The real story is how police budgets have been smashed to nothing and surprise, surprise they dont have staff or resources to deal with anything." Irony: Theresa May: We can cut police budget without risking violent unrest (September 2010)

Penny Red: Panic on the streets of London.

Netanyahu: 'America is a thing you can move very easily' Look harder. Netanyahu -- and basically every single Israeli PM since at least 1967 -- has been doing what the Chinese have done to Tibet: send settlers over in order to annex the land. Now the Tibetans in China have basically no argument; almost all of the citizens there are Han Chinese. The problem for Netanyahu and Israel is that the Arabs -- Christian, Jewish and Muslim -- overwhelmingly will not be overtaken by them. A two state solution is neither viable, or moral, and it's because of these settlers. Of course, when it comes to America...it's silly to blame AIPAC or the Israeli lobbyists for America's [cabbage] foreign policy. America does what it does because Israel is an important spot in the region, and the powers that be benefit from that stability. The MIC also benefits from it. Does anyone criticizing Israeli lobbyists ever look to our foreign policy towards...Latin and South America? Is that any more just? No, if not for the The Lobby, America would treat Israel like it treats China's crimes: write them sternly worded letters, and then continue business as usual. It's a nice thesis, but it takes blame away from the real culprits: the leaders of America.

Heh, Jeffrey Goldberg, someone who served in the Israeli army and is a staunch Zionist; someone with whom I disagree with on almost everything related to Israel, posted this this morning: The Texas Congressman and the Israeli Fascist Kinda funny that he points out the same thing I pointed out earlier. There is a merging of rabid right wing Zionists in Israel with religious right wing Christians. The latter of whom are antisemitic, yet are welcomed in the Knesset with open arms.

From the link above. If that link is not enough, I can provide more if you'd want me to. Hamas should be involved in any negotiations. They are the elected government of the Gaza Strip. Perhaps if Israel didn't actively fund and encourage them in order to splinter the leadership of the PA, they wouldn't exist in the first place, hmmm? What people do you know who advocate for Greater Israel other than the people I listed? Just because you're a Christian doesn't mean you're an antisemitic Christian Zionist. These are antisemitic Christian Zionists: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjMRgT5o-Ig

Indeed, he is correct. Furthermore, any attacks on Israeli soldiers are entirely legitimate, just as any Taliban attacks on NATO forces are legitimate, just as Libyan attacks on NATO forces are legitimate. Of course, being a pacifist myself I wouldn't attack those soldiers if I were a Palestinian; but I know not everyone subscribes to my call to non-violence. So terrorism by someone in your own country= unacceptable Terrorism by someone else= morally acceptable I said soldiers, specifically. It is not terrorism to attack soldiers. It is terrorism to attack and target innocent civilians, such as the settlers. Soldiers protecting the settlers are fair game. They are an occupying force, illegally. Every country, including the war mongering United States, agrees with this. Only the Religious Right, antisemitic Zionist Christians, people like this Norwegian terrorist, and the Likud Party are advocating for Greater Israel.

Alan Dershowitz....LOL That's not what he said: Indeed, he is correct. Furthermore, any attacks on Israeli soldiers are entirely legitimate, just as any Taliban attacks on NATO forces are legitimate, just as Libyan attacks on NATO forces are legitimate. Of course, being a pacifist myself I wouldn't attack those soldiers if I were a Palestinian; but I know not everyone subscribes to my call to non-violence.

We have Tabloids here, and they're in wide circulation, but I don't know that they're as influential as British ones. As for my favorite British newspapers: The Guardian, The Independent, and the Financial Times.

Pamela Geller's conscience is getting to her: Pamela Geller Edits Post to Conceal Violent Rhetoric in 'Email from Norway'

Will Wilkinson: Norwegian v. American Justice: Plush and unusual punishment

The degree I'm in (EE) oftentimes takes 5 years. Because of the 27 credits I entered college with due to AP exams, I'm set to go for just 4 years. So there's that. And all that stuff about writing units and making stuff up is true. I'm pretty sure that's the only reason I got a 5 on Physics despite goofing several times. Well, there you go; that's my point ;). I was Aerospace/Ocean...I only came in with six and it took me five (I knew a few who did it in four, and they had a bunch of 21 credit semesters). I could have accepted Calculus credit but I declined them. I regret not accepting those credits because the TA I had was a major hard ass and we didn't get along, and I got a C in the course; second semester Calc I got an A. Oh well. Hint: if your TA doesn't help you on homework despite you having looked at the notes and he/she tells you that "we did that in class," don't write a snarky note at the top of your assignment (in this case, a take-home quiz). It burns bridges :lol:

Yup. I think it's a pretty safe bet that he isn't of a sound mind. I disagree. Have you read his writings? This was the crime of someone who was perfectly sane. He did what he did, knowing it was evil, because of a passionate commitment to a political cause. He's of perfectly sound mind. The difference in ideology between someone like this and many others on the right wing such as Pat Buchanan and Bill O'Reilly is scant. The difference is not in ideology, but in the move to violence. Now that may be a large overall difference, but is it really truly out there when you believe in your full heart of hearts that these people represent a threat to life as you know it, who must be defeated or else fall to the shackles of tyranny? See Max Blumenthal's stellar article: Anders Behring Breivik, a perfect product of the Axis of Islamophobia Michelle Goldberg also has a good article today: The Norway Shooter’s Zionist Streak: Anders Breivik’s embrace of Israel is the latest sign of a shift among reactionaries in Europe—with fascism and Zionism going hand in hand, fueled by Islamophobia And one more from Michelle Goldberg (man is she on a roll): Norway Killer’s Hatred of Women: Anders Breivik used anger against women to cast himself as a crusader, believing feminism is destroying the West from the inside and creating space for Islamism

Or, you know, it could be that Americans think America's budget spends 27% on foreign aid: Source Yes, those damned Europeans! Spending their money on things like college, health care, child care and assistance to the poor! Why can't they be real men and spend money on guns and bullets like us! Lol, what a bs argument. So because fewer percent of the population is participating in the armed forces -- which is because we don't have a draft, we have a growing population, infant mortality is going down thus we have higher longevity, etc -- that means we're spending less on the military than ever before? We're spending more on the military now than at any point in time in pure physical dollars, and we're not fighting wars of self-defense but wars of aggression and imperialism. Spending more than the entire world combined isn't enough for you? That source doesn't say that the program is better than ending farm subsidies. It just says that Bush's AIDS program was better and more funded than Obama's. So either find a new source, or make a different argument...like, "Bush's AIDS program was better for Africa than Obama's." I find this arguable. I do not find it arguable that Bush's foreign aid program was better by the simple fact that Obama removed the Gag Rule, and isn't promoting abstinence. However, both are failures on terms of foreign aid because of local politicians in the Dakotas and Midwest who never want agricultural subsidies cut. These keep food prices artificially low and African farmers cannot compete. But I guess in your zeal for partisanship for quite possibly the worst president in recent memory, you had to find and exploit his one good spot: his AIDS program. edit: LOL! Look what I found this morning on my feed when I woke up: U.S. trucking contracts funded Taliban, source says Can we leave Afghanistan and Iraq now?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY It's because the Pentagon is essentially another arm of government. A few other reasons: 1.) War is profitable for private businesses, and because we elect individuals rather than parties, it's more expensive to run a campaign in America. This leads to dependence on a lot of funds to continue to win reelection. 2.) The MIC placed its tentacles in every single Congressional District. So if you cut a piece of military spending, you're potentially removing jobs from that part of America. A major part of our economy is built around war. 3.) Once the Cold War ended, its power was so strong that it was unlikely to go anywhere and needed new enemies; dictators in the ME and terrorism continue to give itself fuel. 4.) High level of respect among Americans for military. Not only do Americans not think the military is too powerful, they think it should be more powerful than it already is: This means that no matter what people say about defense spending or the deficit, it will in practice be extremely difficult for mere politicians to ever win an argument with generals and admirals. Oh, and Americans do not care about "perspective" or starving people in Africa. Every poll shows Americans' ignorance about our budget, and that the one thing they want to cut more than anything else is foreign aid: http://www.gallup.com/poll/145790/americans-oppose-cuts-education-social-security-defense.aspx It's not about perspective, it's about Heritage's desire for lower taxes on rich people. End of story. We'd give more aid to Africa if I had my way (and end agriculture subsidies, which contribute far more to African poverty than anything they do on their own); in fact, I was planning to join the Peace Corps after graduation but was forced out due to budget cuts.

It takes a certain special type of [wagon] to politicize a tragedy like this. 1.) As stated, how can you not politicize a political act of terrorism? It's already BEEN politicized by the NYT, the WashPo, etc. In fact, that politicization regarding Muslims/al Qaeda is specifically what I'm attacking. 2.) You're still not understanding my argument because you're too set in your black/white views of the world. 3.) Re-read what has been stated: Glenn is saying that this event has revealed just how ridiculous the media -- including the "liberal" NYT -- has become when it comes to Muslims and al Qaeda; not that this is the fault of "Sarah Palin's rhetoric." Try to actually read instead of being a reactionary. To those who live in Norway, you should be proud of your Prime Minister; what fabulous leadership you have. I only wish my own country would elect someone like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bb2fTQO31GQ&feature=player_embedded Fantastic, bloody fantastic.

Lol, people will call you crazy; at least that's what happens to me when I discuss my views on drugs. Of course, they're attached to stigma and tradition more than the scientific evidence at hand, or what will work better in practice over prohibition. I don't know how I'd feel about heroin being legalized outright; the cultural stigma against it is far too strong. I mean, Amy Winehouse just died...that's not exactly going to help our argument. But in any case, I'd need to see it decriminalized -- in more countries than just Portugal, especially the United States -- before any talk of outright legalization. There would also need to be more focus on health and education. Also, glad to see you here again, venomai. I've missed your well-thought arguments, especially on subjects such as these.

In university, you need 120 credits for the standard degree in the United States (varies depending on the major; engineering at my school was 132, but my major was 136. I graduated with 156 credits). 12 credits per semester or more are required to be considered a full-time student (the maximum is usually around 19, but you can apply for special privilege to take more; I've known students who have taken 24 credits in a single semester...they're insane). An average course is 3 credits (some courses have labs attached, such as Physics, and are 4 credits; others, such as single labs, are 1 credit; and still others are only 2 credits). So if you come into university with 10 AP courses that count, that's 30 credits (usually), which means almost your entire first year at college is already done. So when you graduate high school, you only need to take three years to graduate instead of four.

Nothing at all. Everything's been said when it comes to condolences -- of course others are free to leave theirs here if they so desire, especially as there are Norwegians present. So I figured I would start a discussion by bringing out the always readable Glenn Greenwald and PZ Myers. Greenwald is even better this morning with his latest: Al Qaeda is always to blame, even when it isn't, even when it's allegedly the work of a Nordic, Muslim-hating, right-wing European nationalist. Of course, before Al Qaeda, nobody ever thought to detonate bombs in government buildings or go on indiscriminate, politically motivated shooting rampages. The NYT speculates that amonium nitrate fertilizer may have been used to make the bomb because the suspect, Anders Behring Breivik, owned a farming-related business and thus could have access to that material; of course nobody would have ever thought of using that substance to make a massive bomb had it not been for Al Qaeda. So all this proves once again what a menacing threat radical Islam is. The rest is here: The omnipotence of Al Qaeda and meaninglessness of "Terrorism" And of course in missing the point Glenn, PZ and I were trying to make, sees_all1 decided to accuse me -- sarcastically -- of saying this is the fault of right-wing rhetoric. So I responded back with my own sarcastic retort, once again to emphasize the original point I made.

Glenn Greenwald: The Oslo Attacks Oh, also, PZ Myers: ~The Nightmare in Norway

Uh, no, I'm not full of it. You were discussing welfare programs. Medicare and Medicaid aren't welfare programs (and even though Medicaid provides help to poor people, almost 50% its funding goes to nursing homes; Medicaid is also the cheapest health care out there). Health care fraud is a result of doctors misreporting and criminal groups, not poor people cheating the government. Medicaid is means tested, how is that not welfare? So you think if something is means-tested in any form that it's a welfare program? You need a better definition, because Medicare is means-tested, too. And like I said, this isn't a program just for poor people, most of its funds are for the elderly and the disabled. It’s the main way we finance long-term care in this country. If you don’t directly benefit from it, you very likely have a parent or grandparent who does: In terms of the “welfare” aspect of Medicaid, by far the largest set of poor people it covers are poor children. Is it your view that these kids should have worked harder to have rich parents? My "fascination" is that you and the Heritage Foundation want to cut Medicaid while leaving the military budget -- a military budget that's higher than during the Cold War -- completely intact. You have your priorities out of whack. Although this discussion proves my initial point on why you want to change the definition of what it means to be poor ;) Okay, I am done with you. Whenever someone refers to taxation as robbery, they're just not a serious person worthy of discussion. Go over to www.Lewrockwell.com and talk about how great Ayn Rand is somewhere else. Oh, also? Californians pay more in federal taxes than they get back: It's the southern states who are receiving most federal monies in terms of what they initially paid in. [8 year-old's retort]Well I'm rubber and you're glue so whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.[/8 year-old's retort] That's not really what I said; pointing out an ironic aspect of the discussion isn't taking what you say and "bouncing" it. It's also interesting how you didn't address my point.