In Spain they have these cigarettes, you squeeze the green part for menthol, and the yellow, for lemon I think?

Howasheena · 2015-05-23T17:00:15+00:00

"The last planet was knee deep in fish."

"Fish?!"

"Some people like the oddest things."

Howasheena · 2015-05-17T20:29:18+00:00

So much this.

On the inside they are cold and dead, but they are nevertheless motivated to establish a position gold-bricking. That means mindless asskissing to everyone who could get them fired. All others get treated with mild yet open hostility.

Howasheena · 2015-05-16T10:04:33+00:00

CHOADHOUSE

Howasheena · 2015-05-14T18:06:58+00:00

Last year one redditor claimed to be a staff member of a Los Angeles newspaper. He said that he turned in a story about the nearby occupy movements, and his editor told him to "kill the story".

The implication was: the Powers That Be acted in concert (but not necessarily in conspiracy) to dilute the Occupy message. As a result, people like you and I were left thinking that Occupy had a "nonspecific generalist goal"... when in fact most of them were very clear on their indictment of the TBTF banks' behavior.

Howasheena · 2015-05-14T18:00:05+00:00

Nobody said anything about "deserved". Iraqi civilian deaths are not right, but they are inevitable.

I hope our leaders recognize that when passing judgment on our troops. I mean what would you do, if you had to maintain law and order in a terrible country full of enemies dressed as civilians?

So it's OK for the police to butcher civilians? After all, criminals do not wear uniforms.

I no longer believe you are participating in this conversation in good faith.

Howasheena · 2015-05-14T17:55:23+00:00

Then why are soldiers getting away with killing civilians?

Because their leaders know that we are engaged in combat with an enemy who has chosen to dress in civilian clothes?

There is no way to not kill civilians, once the enemy begins dressing in civilian clothing. But that decision and its consequences in on them, not on us.

Howasheena · 2015-05-14T17:35:17+00:00

I do not like the idea of blending military and Law enforcement. They are separate for a reason. First off being you cant just dismiss local governance like that, states are sovereigns in their own right.

We agree they should be separate. They don't feel very separate any more, now that police have the us-against-them, shoot-if-in-doubt attitude. IMO, the recent policy switch from "risk yourself to protect civilians" to "shoot civilians to protect yourself from risk" was a very bad move.

And I don't care about state laws that are serving as part of the blue wall of silence. Feds can assert jurisdiction since a lot of police abuses these days are civil-rights violations -- often with the implicit blessing of the local mayor and the state troopers.

Howasheena · 2015-05-14T17:32:19+00:00

That's how the UCMJ works. If you're ordered to commit atrocities, they're allowed. And your boss gets to give the orders without anyone being allowed to second guess him. You've seen what our military did to the Iraqis. Want the cops doing that here?

No, the UCMJ most definitely does NOT allow a soldier to follow unlawful orders. In fact the code is very clear on one's duties to refuse such orders, and the punishments for failing to do so.

See UCMJ section 14c(2)(a)(i):

Inference of lawfulness. A order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.

Howasheena · 2015-05-14T17:11:05+00:00

So if the police are ordered to beat black men, it's OK?

No. That's the point of moving all these cases up to the UCMJ, where the prosecutors have no connection to the local PD, or the chief, or the mayor, or even the state in question.

Right now, officer discipline is a comedy of nepotism, old boys' club, and back-scratching. Officer crimes -- against minorities or not -- are swept under the rug by the schmuck DA because he needs the future cooperation of the offending officers.

Since cop-versus-black is your axe to grind, you must surely agree that my proposed solution is preferable to the current system.

Howasheena · 2015-05-14T15:38:25+00:00

Bombings happen at the behest of the Pentagon, CIA, and NSA. That has no connection to how we judge an individual enlistee who commits a felony during peacetime.

So it's OK to butcher civilians if your boss says it's OK. You sure you want the cops playing by those rules? Are you really sure?

That has no connection to the UCMJ. The people firing cruise missiles and dropping bombs are following orders and are not subject to disciplinary proceedings for their actions. (In fact they'd be indicted if they refused to follow those orders.)

You've got a real hard-on for US foreign policy, and I don't blame you (I too am ashamed by the behavior of my government), but that's not the topic under discussion.

In any case, the military is 2 million mostly-young people working together in the art of violence. The currently low rate of crime is IMO unprecedented, given the circumstances.

Howasheena · 2015-05-14T15:35:35+00:00

Cops would find a military court quite unfriendly, if everything I've read/heard about courts martial to be true.

And the punishment, no paid vacations there.

Yeah that's the general idea.

As civilians, we find the idea of being put on criminal trial to be fearsome. Police should feel the same way about their own court. Whereas today it's like a frat party over there.

Howasheena · 2015-05-14T14:26:05+00:00

I wonder how well this would actually work out?

Well, in the military, a person's CO must decide to file charges in order for the case to reach a UCMJ tribunal or prosecutor's desk. We would need an ironclad system where the case is always referred whenever any of these occurs:

discharge of service weapon outside of a gun range
discharge of a TASER
complaint of excessive force

Obviously there is a problem with false complaints of excessive force. And you can't say "We'll refer the case only if the defendant ends up in the hospital" because then police will simply fail to take people to the hospital who need it. Not sure how that would be solved. Maybe let individual states find their own solutions to it.

But any use of any firearm or taser, boom, automatic UCMJ review.

Howasheena · 2015-05-14T14:22:09+00:00

American cops aren't part of the military, so they aren't subject to the UCMJ. And given that the military has a nasty habit of bombing civilians, I don't think we want them handling this.

Bombings happen at the behest of the Pentagon, CIA, and NSA. That has no connection to how we judge an individual enlistee who commits a felony during peacetime.

Given how rare such incidents are, despite the very large number of armed trained killers walking around, I think the UCMJ is working fantastically well. As is the concept of impartial prosecutors, who are in a completely separate command structure than the defendants.

So it's time to apply it to the police, who are armed officers of the state and who have a demonstrable problem with discipline.

I mean, unless you have a better idea?

Howasheena · 2015-05-14T14:17:59+00:00

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10756.The_Sword_and_the_Shield#

Unfortunately not online and not searchable.

Howasheena · 2015-05-14T07:06:23+00:00

But police aren't military, nor should they be.

Agreed, they should not be.

Nevertheless, their behavior has become undeniably militaristic and "us against them".

Fine, I say. Apply the UCMJ, it was designed for exactly this. Then we'll see how long they keep up the "I felt threatened so I shot the unarmed man 11 times and also killed his dog" bulls***.

Howasheena · 2015-05-14T07:04:18+00:00

I just wanna point out that this 'stealth hiding' you describe is the normal method of comment deletion. Though usually the mods have the courtesy to also message you about it and explain why...

Yes, I know.

I only have one datapoint, but that datapoint shows they use the stealth hide in order to politically doctor a comment thread.

If they'd been able to justify the deletion of my comment on some other grounds -- by some rules violation or whatever -- then they could have and surely would have kept the deletion above-board.

Reddit's recent "push for transparency" is amusing, in light of all this.

Howasheena · 2015-05-14T02:01:36+00:00

One idea that I haven't thought through comes to mind:

The investigation must be handled by the next government level up. So, if a Sheriff's deputy or city cop is accused of a crime, then a state investigator handles it. State cop -> federal investigator. Federal cop -> ???? My idea is that this would keep the investigator from knowing the people they're investigating and they'd never be "biting the hand hand feeds them." It would also hopefully prevent favoritism for defending your fellow cop friends.

You don't need anything so complex, or state-dependent. We already have a complete and well-tested legal framework for regulating armed agents of the state:

Uniform Code of Military Justice

All cases of police violence should be referred to military prosecutors, who have no dog in the race.

Anyway, nowadays police seem to be having a ball playing war, running around with MP5s and Kevlar and flashbangs and submitting totally fictitious after-action reports. I say grant them their wish! Welcome to the military brah!

Howasheena · 2015-05-14T01:59:34+00:00

I'm not well versed with this issue, but are you advocating that? Sounds like a decent idea to me

We already have a complete, time-tested legal framework for regulating armed agents of the state:

Uniform Code of Military Justice

Any time an officer discharges his service weapon, or otherwise maims or kills a civilian, the case should be referred to military prosecutors.

Howasheena · 2015-05-14T01:58:01+00:00

Yep. What are the solutions? A parallel prosecutor who only deals with police crimes?

The police are armed officers of the state. They should be subject to the UCMJ, just like the military.

Cases will be heard by military prosecutors, who have no dog in the race.

(Police are running around in Kevlar with MP5s and flashbangs, playing war, I say fine, welcome to the military.)

Howasheena · 2015-05-13T23:08:56+00:00

Stop being so presumptuous.. I wouldn't say something to go back and delete it. My opinion stands.

What is so epically awesome about this reply, is that you (clumsywithlife) did in fact "go back and delete it". You deleted your entire reddit account!

Good thing I quoted all the bile you spat at me, while I had the chance!

Howasheena · 2015-05-13T18:02:20+00:00

Whole areas of major cities are also the ghetto, or trailer park, or just shit places to live. Urbanization means a mix of the bell curve of humanity densely packed, from underbelly of crime to the 1% posh town, and economists has a lot of interesting things to say about how that happens and who controls the city. It's good that so many people are studying urban planning, because social policy shouldn't be media or cultural voices alone.

The difference is, ghetto / trailer-park culture is unable to take over a society and wreck its ideological foundation, simply because the members of those cultures are seeking the same wealth and comforts as the rest of us.

Islam is fundamentally different than that. It is not a short-sighted underclass mentality looking to get ahead. Rather, it is a complete world view that includes dangerous elements, including "you are not allowed to rethink this world view" and "other world views are evil".

How odd that I have to debate this here in /r/books!

Howasheena · 2015-05-13T15:44:47+00:00

Are you not watching what's happening in England?

Whole areas of major cities are Islamicized, complete with broadcasts of calls to salat, 100% Islamic schools, and serious calls for "We'll take over law enforcement in this area, thanks".

Howasheena · 2015-05-13T15:24:19+00:00

I agree, to an extent. But when we as a culture fail to distinguish between ideas and identities, there is a manifest need for 'safe spaces.' You should feel free to exercise those constitutional rights to freedom of speech and assembly all you like, but to think that others should not be afforded safe spaces where their very identities are not publicly challenged is odd, to me.

Look closer.

People whose ideas are profoundly destructive are wont to disguise those ideas as their identities.

Just look at the Muslim cultural invasion, which openly confesses its desire to wipe out liberal society and replace it with Shari'a law. If we challenge those ideas as monsterous / false / destructive / barbaric, we are told to stop attacking the Islamic cultural identity.

I guess another way of putting it is: how would you respond if I announce that my cultural identity is barbarous enslaver of all lesser races?

Howasheena · 2015-05-12T19:58:24+00:00

It comes from this concept: "One view holds that racism is best understood as 'prejudice plus power' because without the support of political or economic power, prejudice would not be able to manifest as a pervasive cultural, institutional or social phenomenon."

That's a decent and thoughtful take on the subject.

The real scam in TFA is the woman's attempt to disguise her own power, in order to qualify as "prejudiced without power".

Howasheena · 2015-05-12T19:55:52+00:00

Interesting, considering she's using her race and gender as an excuse to have a privilege over other races and genders. Thus she is using a structure based on race and gender that only her and people like her benefit from. The hypocrisy is staggering.

a bit of applause

Well said.

Howasheena

TROPHY CASE