In the US hate crimes are legally defined as those committed on the basis of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or gender of any person. I agree that the shootings in Tennessee may fall under that definition, but it's not yet clear that they do.
In the US hate crimes are legally defined as those committed on the basis of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or gender of any person. I agree that the shootings in Tennessee may fall under that definition, but it's not yet clear that they do.
But there is only the Human race, correct? So, hate crime.
For better or worse, hate crimes are classified as crimes motivated by bigotry of some sort. Non-bigotry-related hatred is not part of the definition.
Whether we should make a distinction is another question, but that's what the term is for.
I understand what you are saying but do you guys understand what I am saying. Division and Fear are the weapons they use. We are all Human. Doubt there where any ET's in that church.
I understand what you're saying, but I don't think that hatred is the only emotion that can lead to violence even if you want to discount the legal meaning of hate crime. Nor do I think that violence is all the result of some conspiracy or manipulation of society - though I will certainly accept that we should all be aiming to help reduce it.
In the US hate crimes are legally defined as those committed on the basis of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or gender of any person. I agree that the shootings in Tennessee may fall under that definition, but it's not yet clear that they do.
But there is only the Human race, correct? So, hate crime.
In the US hate crimes are legally defined as those committed on the basis of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or gender of any person. I agree that the shootings in Tennessee may fall under that definition, but it's not yet clear that they do.
But there is only the Human race, correct? So, hate crime.
Real life is not video games, my friend.
Can you please elaborate? I fail to understand your post.
I understand what you're saying, but I don't think that hatred is the only emotion that can lead to violence even if you want to discount the legal meaning of hate crime. Nor do I think that violence is all the result of some conspiracy or manipulation of society - though I will certainly accept that we should all be aiming to help reduce it.
Not a conspiracy Grond0, truth. The world economies runs on oil and war. War for oil and oil for war. If we all love each other then we start taking to the streets for better health care and better way of life. End of poverty and destruction of the nature.
Instead we have countries like Yemen and Syria being leveled for oil by the Turks and the States and Russia dropping bombs to showcase their arsenal for sale. China is fighting warlords in Africa for minerals and selling them the weapons to fight back.
While the rest of us that buy Iphones and Magic Bullets get to have distractions put in our faces 24/7.
Trump and Clintons' daughters went to school together. Trump and the Clintons own businesses and property together. They schmooze with each other at their parties and functions.
It's all good though. There's a new I phone coming out soon.
The world's economy runs on a lot more than oil and war.
As for the Trump and Clinton daughters I assume you're not really suggesting that this is evidence of a conspiracy between them, but that because they are both entangled in the capitalist economic system that means that they approach things in a common way. If that is what you're suggesting I think you're giving way too much respect to the power of the system and way too little to the ability of people to think outside that system.
Capitalist attitudes drove both the reparations demands of the Versailles Treaty after World War 1 and the Marshall Plan after World War 2. The former seemed extremely harsh (Germany only finished paying in 2010, despite the original sum due being reduced three times), while the latter seemed extremely generous. However, there was a clear link between the demand for reparations and the huge economic cost of World War 2, just as there was between the Marshall Plan and future trading opportunities. It's pretty clear to me which approach was ultimately more beneficial economically as well as in other ways.
There's been a lot of discussion in this thread about health care arrangements in the US. The lack of universal access to health care there is not a consequence of the capitalist system, but of choices made by people within that system - and those choices can be changed. There's evidence in the world today, both within and between countries, of enormous differences in the way decisions are made and resources allocated in capitalist countries. That suggests to me that there's plenty of opportunity to work within the system to improve it, rather than saying the system needs to be totally rejected.
If the morning show callers on my local right-wing radio station are any indication (and they are) conservatives are utterly apoplectic about the protests yesterday. These are the same people whose rallying cry for at least the last year and a half has been how society is being destroyed by "political correctness". What is more politically correct than the Pavlovian response that causes everyone to stand and place their hand over their heart when the anthem starts?? Furthermore, the vast, vast majority of these people identify as Christian. Much like they don't abide by the flag code in real life, they also don't even know the First Commandment, which is "I am the lord thy God, though shalt have no other Gods before me". The flag of ANY country is a false god if I have ever seen one. Those who flock to authoritarians are OBSESSED with worship of meaningless symbols, even at the expense of actual people.
The Old Testament, which includes the Ten Commandments, technically does not apply to Christians...but that is a discussion for a completely separate thread altogether. One other thing I will note is that the first commandment, "thou shalt have no other gods before me" does *not* prevent anyone from worshiping any other god; rather, it states quite plainly that any other god must be secondary in importance. *sigh* I had to get a dual degree in mathematics and chemistry, which means I probably missed another career which could have played to my strengths--lawyer.
At the very least, none of the people upset about athletes kneeling have read Joseph Campbell because they are clearly confusing the Symbol with the Message. The flag of a country is not the country itself--it is just a piece of fabric--and you cannot disrespect a flag because a flag is an inanimate object. You *can* disrespect the *idea* of a country, though, but kneeling during the anthem is not disrespect, especially when the country gives you the right to kneel during the anthem. Logically, it is impossible to disrespect a country by following the rules of that country.
I may disagree with the protesters in St. Louis--that police officer was charged with a crime, had his day in court, and the court found him "not guilty", which satisfies the legal requirements and the definition of "justice"--but at least they are protesting something *real*--police brutality--and not some stupid piece of fabric and a song.
Word is the White House is planning to send a diaster relief bill for Puerto Rico to Congress.....in the first or second week of October. No rush or anything.
The Old Testament, which includes the Ten Commandments, technically does not apply to Christians...but that is a discussion for a completely separate thread altogether. One other thing I will note is that the first commandment, "thou shalt have no other gods before me" does *not* prevent anyone from worshiping any other god; rather, it states quite plainly that any other god must be secondary in importance. *sigh* I had to get a dual degree in mathematics and chemistry, which means I probably missed another career which could have played to my strengths--lawyer.
At the very least, none of the people upset about athletes kneeling have read Joseph Campbell because they are clearly confusing the Symbol with the Message. The flag of a country is not the country itself--it is just a piece of fabric--and you cannot disrespect a flag because a flag is an inanimate object. You *can* disrespect the *idea* of a country, though, but kneeling during the anthem is not disrespect, especially when the country gives you the right to kneel during the anthem. Logically, it is impossible to disrespect a country by following the rules of that country.
I may disagree with the protesters in St. Louis--that police officer was charged with a crime, had his day in court, and the court found him "not guilty", which satisfies the legal requirements and the definition of "justice"--but at least they are protesting something *real*--police brutality--and not some stupid piece of fabric and a song.
It's worth noting that that cop was caught ON FILM planting a gun on the person he shot. And yet anyone who realizes what is going on in this country would be completely unsurprised he got off. There has been ONE high-profile case in the last couple years of a cop getting convicted, and he was systematically raping women during traffic stops. Barring that, you can get away with anything.
The phrase "a day late and a dollar short" doesn't even come close to describing that (edit: Puerto Rico aftermath). There may still be people in Florida without power (but I doubt it) so let's route those crews (at least the ones who volunteer for the extra work) to Puerto Rico to get that grid back online ASAP, as well as other efforts to get them what they need.
Meanwhile, the DPRK has accused Trump of declaring war on their country. Let's just set aside for now the fact that the President does not have the authority to declare war, the United States has not officially declared war on *anyone* since 1942, the last military engagements authorized by Congress were in 2003 (most of them are still active engagements at this time), and the last authorization for military force by UN Security Council resolution was from 2011. Despite all their "let's see whose is bigger" talk, I don't think Trump is going to try and make the first move here. The DPRK have already made the first couple of moves, though--just ask the people in Japan who have had two missile warnings in the last couple of months.
Note that I didn't say the St. Louis cop was innocent, only that the court found him "not guilty"--those are two completely different things. I am beginning to suspect that the police who engage in this sort of overly-violent behavior do not have those tendencies when they first become officers but develop that attitude in a relatively short amount of time (probably less than five years). Some probably are that way from the start, to be certain, but I can see how living that life and being in that world can change a person.
The DPRK have already made the first couple of moves, though--just ask the people in Japan who have had two missile warnings in the last couple of months.
The provocation is not just from one side. The installation of missile defenses and joint maneuvers with South Korea may be seen as simply wise preparation for defense from this side, but combine that with Trump's rhetoric and it's easy to see why the other side may perceive things differently. Just recently the US sent bombers with accompanying fighters on a flight over water just to the east of N Korea, which is no doubt why N Korea said today they reserved the right to shoot down such flights even if they were in international airspace.
When two sides are both determined to prove they will not back down to perceived aggression the chances of conflict happening accidentally are hugely increased ...
The world's economy runs on a lot more than oil and war.
As for the Trump and Clinton daughters I assume you're not really suggesting that this is evidence of a conspiracy between them, but that because they are both entangled in the capitalist economic system that means that they approach things in a common way. If that is what you're suggesting I think you're giving way too much respect to the power of the system and way too little to the ability of people to think outside that system.
Capitalist attitudes drove both the reparations demands of the Versailles Treaty after World War 1 and the Marshall Plan after World War 2. The former seemed extremely harsh (Germany only finished paying in 2010, despite the original sum due being reduced three times), while the latter seemed extremely generous. However, there was a clear link between the demand for reparations and the huge economic cost of World War 2, just as there was between the Marshall Plan and future trading opportunities. It's pretty clear to me which approach was ultimately more beneficial economically as well as in other ways.
There's been a lot of discussion in this thread about health care arrangements in the US. The lack of universal access to health care there is not a consequence of the capitalist system, but of choices made by people within that system - and those choices can be changed. There's evidence in the world today, both within and between countries, of enormous differences in the way decisions are made and resources allocated in capitalist countries. That suggests to me that there's plenty of opportunity to work within the system to improve it, rather than saying the system needs to be totally rejected.
The word conspiracy, is used by some, to be dismissive or to negate someone. I hope you are not using it that way with me.
Just by using the word conspiracy over and over I see that you are being dismissive.
Banks drove the reparations that still have not been paid in full. Only one group of elites received anything. Kinda like whats going on in Iraq and Lybia. Fund (monetarily and militarily) wars on both sides, then get the contracts and give loans to rebuild while the people suffer. That's thinking outside of the system I guess.
Universal health care is directly tied to big Pharma lobbyists. They own the health care system in the states. They run it along with the insurance companies. Make them relinquish their control and voila, Universal health care at an affordable tax cost for all. Yet I think I'm thinking too outside of the system.
The Gold standard doesn't exist anymore. Oil is the standard now. Ron Paul understood this, just capitalism isn't ready to think outside of the system yet.
Please don't think I'm saying capitalism doesn't work or is broken. It's doing exactly what it was envisioned to do. Not allow the middle and lower class to think at all. Just consume whatever tripe they put on that magick mirror and keep our heads down. Do not think outside the system.
The next war to end all wars will be waged by Humans who would want to rid the world of the Iphone, and those who will fight to the death for their right to have one.
The Korean Armistice is only a cease-fire, not a peace treaty; therefore, United Nations Security Council Resolution 84 is still in effect...but that was not technically the United States issuing any declaration. We may not feel that we are still in a conflict with them but for the DPRK it is still 1950, thus they feel as if they are in a conflict with us. A classic example of "not letting go of the past".
Fans--well, former fans--of various NFL teams are taking to YouTube to burn their NFL-branded merchandise. *shrug* Once you buy some memorabilia it becomes your property and you may do with it as you please. The team already got your money so burning a jersey means only that you are out whatever money you spent on it. I don't own any merchandise and I don't watch American football, anyway, so I have no interest in that particular fight. My stake in it is the larger discussion as to what is, or is not, "patriotic"...and in my opinion neither "not singing the national anthem" nor "not standing for the national anthem" qualify as "unpatriotic".
edit/add: In the interest of equity and full context, we really need to see the 10 or 15 minutes *before* the wheelchair-using protesters were removed. They probably shouldn't have been removed, most likely, but depending upon what they were doing their actions might have warranted being removed, just as it would for someone not in a wheelchair.
The Korean Armistice is only a cease-fire, not a peace treaty; therefore, United Nations Security Council Resolution 84 is still in effect...but that was not technically the United States issuing any declaration. We may not feel that we are still in a conflict with them but for the DPRK it is still 1950, thus they feel as if they are in a conflict with us. A classic example of "not letting go of the past".
Fans--well, former fans--of various NFL teams are taking to YouTube to burn their NFL-branded merchandise. *shrug* Once you buy some memorabilia it becomes your property and you may do with it as you please. The team already got your money so burning a jersey means only that you are out whatever money you spent on it. I don't own any merchandise and I don't watch American football, anyway, so I have no interest in that particular fight. My stake in it is the larger discussion as to what is, or is not, "patriotic"...and in my opinion neither "not singing the national anthem" nor "not standing for the national anthem" qualify as "unpatriotic".
I bet all the money in my checking account 99% of those saying they aren't going to watch the games anymore are going to still watch the games.
The Korean Armistice is only a cease-fire, not a peace treaty; therefore, United Nations Security Council Resolution 84 is still in effect...but that was not technically the United States issuing any declaration. We may not feel that we are still in a conflict with them but for the DPRK it is still 1950, thus they feel as if they are in a conflict with us. A classic example of "not letting go of the past".
Fans--well, former fans--of various NFL teams are taking to YouTube to burn their NFL-branded merchandise. *shrug* Once you buy some memorabilia it becomes your property and you may do with it as you please. The team already got your money so burning a jersey means only that you are out whatever money you spent on it. I don't own any merchandise and I don't watch American football, anyway, so I have no interest in that particular fight. My stake in it is the larger discussion as to what is, or is not, "patriotic"...and in my opinion neither "not singing the national anthem" nor "not standing for the national anthem" qualify as "unpatriotic".
edit/add: In the interest of equity and full context, we really need to see the 10 or 15 minutes *before* the wheelchair-using protesters were removed. They probably shouldn't have been removed, most likely, but depending upon what they were doing their actions might have warranted being removed, just as it would for someone not in a wheelchair.
True enough, but maybe one of the very few advantages in life to being confined to a wheelchair is that if you make someone have police forcibly remove you from somewhere, they look heartless and callous no matter what. There is no way to lose that optics battle, which is precisely why they are willing to be arrested to get the images out.
I concur--those protesters won by being removed because that video clip will be *everywhere* now. As is always the case, though, bad legislation is bad. I doubt Sanders' "Medicare for all" bill--which may not be better than Graham-Cassidy albeit for different reasons--even makes it out of committee.
You are correct--you know those folks will still watch their games. They might stick to it for a month or two but as the season grinds on towards playoffs they'll start watching again. These people are the equivalent of celebrities saying "I am going to move out of the country if such-and-such gets elected" yet they never do.
I concur--those protesters won by being removed because that video clip will be *everywhere* now. As is always the case, though, bad legislation is bad. I doubt Sanders' "Medicare for all" bill--which may not be better than Graham-Cassidy albeit for different reasons--even makes it out of committee.
You are correct--you know those folks will still watch their games. They might stick to it for a month or two but as the season grinds on towards playoffs they'll start watching again. These people are the equivalent of celebrities saying "I am going to move out of the country if such-and-such gets elected" yet they never do.
The hooks of football are in way too deep for this to have any impact. It's a weekly fix, and the fix is stronger than whatever convictions they claim to have. I personally didn't watch for a year awhile back because I was so burnt out on a half a decade of fantasy football, but this isn't any different than when I "quit" World of Warcraft. 4 or 5 months later, I always enter my credit card number and level a new toon.
Comments
Whether we should make a distinction is another question, but that's what the term is for.
Instead we have countries like Yemen and Syria being leveled for oil by the Turks and the States and Russia dropping bombs to showcase their arsenal for sale. China is fighting warlords in Africa for minerals and selling them the weapons to fight back.
While the rest of us that buy Iphones and Magic Bullets get to have distractions put in our faces 24/7.
Trump and Clintons' daughters went to school together. Trump and the Clintons own businesses and property together. They schmooze with each other at their parties and functions.
It's all good though. There's a new I phone coming out soon.
As for the Trump and Clinton daughters I assume you're not really suggesting that this is evidence of a conspiracy between them, but that because they are both entangled in the capitalist economic system that means that they approach things in a common way. If that is what you're suggesting I think you're giving way too much respect to the power of the system and way too little to the ability of people to think outside that system.
Capitalist attitudes drove both the reparations demands of the Versailles Treaty after World War 1 and the Marshall Plan after World War 2. The former seemed extremely harsh (Germany only finished paying in 2010, despite the original sum due being reduced three times), while the latter seemed extremely generous. However, there was a clear link between the demand for reparations and the huge economic cost of World War 2, just as there was between the Marshall Plan and future trading opportunities. It's pretty clear to me which approach was ultimately more beneficial economically as well as in other ways.
There's been a lot of discussion in this thread about health care arrangements in the US. The lack of universal access to health care there is not a consequence of the capitalist system, but of choices made by people within that system - and those choices can be changed. There's evidence in the world today, both within and between countries, of enormous differences in the way decisions are made and resources allocated in capitalist countries. That suggests to me that there's plenty of opportunity to work within the system to improve it, rather than saying the system needs to be totally rejected.
At the very least, none of the people upset about athletes kneeling have read Joseph Campbell because they are clearly confusing the Symbol with the Message. The flag of a country is not the country itself--it is just a piece of fabric--and you cannot disrespect a flag because a flag is an inanimate object. You *can* disrespect the *idea* of a country, though, but kneeling during the anthem is not disrespect, especially when the country gives you the right to kneel during the anthem. Logically, it is impossible to disrespect a country by following the rules of that country.
I may disagree with the protesters in St. Louis--that police officer was charged with a crime, had his day in court, and the court found him "not guilty", which satisfies the legal requirements and the definition of "justice"--but at least they are protesting something *real*--police brutality--and not some stupid piece of fabric and a song.
Meanwhile, the DPRK has accused Trump of declaring war on their country. Let's just set aside for now the fact that the President does not have the authority to declare war, the United States has not officially declared war on *anyone* since 1942, the last military engagements authorized by Congress were in 2003 (most of them are still active engagements at this time), and the last authorization for military force by UN Security Council resolution was from 2011. Despite all their "let's see whose is bigger" talk, I don't think Trump is going to try and make the first move here. The DPRK have already made the first couple of moves, though--just ask the people in Japan who have had two missile warnings in the last couple of months.
Note that I didn't say the St. Louis cop was innocent, only that the court found him "not guilty"--those are two completely different things. I am beginning to suspect that the police who engage in this sort of overly-violent behavior do not have those tendencies when they first become officers but develop that attitude in a relatively short amount of time (probably less than five years). Some probably are that way from the start, to be certain, but I can see how living that life and being in that world can change a person.
When two sides are both determined to prove they will not back down to perceived aggression the chances of conflict happening accidentally are hugely increased ...
Just by using the word conspiracy over and over I see that you are being dismissive.
Banks drove the reparations that still have not been paid in full. Only one group of elites received anything. Kinda like whats going on in Iraq and Lybia. Fund (monetarily and militarily) wars on both sides, then get the contracts and give loans to rebuild while the people suffer. That's thinking outside of the system I guess.
Universal health care is directly tied to big Pharma lobbyists. They own the health care system in the states. They run it along with the insurance companies. Make them relinquish their control and voila, Universal health care at an affordable tax cost for all. Yet I think I'm thinking too outside of the system.
The Gold standard doesn't exist anymore. Oil is the standard now. Ron Paul understood this, just capitalism isn't ready to think outside of the system yet.
Please don't think I'm saying capitalism doesn't work or is broken. It's doing exactly what it was envisioned to do. Not allow the middle and lower class to think at all. Just consume whatever tripe they put on that magick mirror and keep our heads down. Do not think outside the system.
The next war to end all wars will be waged by Humans who would want to rid the world of the Iphone, and those who will fight to the death for their right to have one.
Fans--well, former fans--of various NFL teams are taking to YouTube to burn their NFL-branded merchandise. *shrug* Once you buy some memorabilia it becomes your property and you may do with it as you please. The team already got your money so burning a jersey means only that you are out whatever money you spent on it. I don't own any merchandise and I don't watch American football, anyway, so I have no interest in that particular fight. My stake in it is the larger discussion as to what is, or is not, "patriotic"...and in my opinion neither "not singing the national anthem" nor "not standing for the national anthem" qualify as "unpatriotic".
edit/add: In the interest of equity and full context, we really need to see the 10 or 15 minutes *before* the wheelchair-using protesters were removed. They probably shouldn't have been removed, most likely, but depending upon what they were doing their actions might have warranted being removed, just as it would for someone not in a wheelchair.
You are correct--you know those folks will still watch their games. They might stick to it for a month or two but as the season grinds on towards playoffs they'll start watching again. These people are the equivalent of celebrities saying "I am going to move out of the country if such-and-such gets elected" yet they never do.