And yet we still spend almost four times as much as China does on military.

Seems sustainable to me!

Interesting article. Hey, here's something to not be distracted by when cops kill/injure/steal from/otherwise infringe upon the rights of American citizens:

Race.

The author makes a decent point--that we too often get hung up on inconsequential tangents to attempt to justify abuses of power--but she makes a similar mistake by making it into an issue of race.

Let's say you have a playground for kids, and then you put a bunch of angry bulls in the playground and poke them a bit to get them good and aggressive. Can you guess what will happen? That's right, the bulls will gore the kids. It's not a happy result, but it's a predictable one. They're probably going to gore the kids wearing red first, too. The kids in red are no more deserving of being gored than the others, but they'll be the most common targets. Now, if you were to look at this situation and recognize a problem there, and then say, "see, another kid wearing a red shirt got gored by a bull, the problem of bulls attacking kids in red is getting worse!" then you're a god damned moron, firstly, and secondly you got distracted by the color of the kid's shirt and missed the real problem. The problem isn't that the bulls are unfairly targeting kids with red on. The problem is some jackass put a bunch of angry bulls in a playground with kids.

In the case of cops, we've been militarizing police forces for too long, giving them far too much unilateral authority and far too many legal responsibilities while restricting the liberty of non-police citizens at the same time. In doing this we've created a huge power disparity between the "peace officers" and those whom they purport to assist and protect, we've provided too many justifications and even demands for conflict, and we've been requiring no accountability on the part of the predictable variable of bad cops who abuse their power or simply neglect to accurately assess situations before escalating the use of power. Cops, by default, are no better or worse than people in other professions. They're just people, by default. But then when you create a situation where bad policing is allowed and even encouraged, without ever being punished, then you will necessarily push out the good cops and wind up with the entirely predictable result of there being a disproportionate ratio of A-holes:Decent People in police forces relative to the rest of society, where cops in places like Ferguson will do things like charge someone for destruction of property when he bleeds on the uniform of the officer who is beating him, and their coworkers will either look the other way or even assist them.

This pools up really badly in some places, like St. Louis, Philly, DC, LA, NYC, but it's a systematic problem throughout the nation and one we need to address.

This is not about race. The problem is not that cops are attacking black Americans. The problem is that cops are attacking Americans, because we've created a system that allows and even encourages it. This is an American problem, that Americans of all races need to get involved in to fix.

Stop getting distracted by race.

Oh, also, stop getting distracted by a letter between brackets, too.

edit: link fail

I would read "Twilight" and add "become a sparkly damned vampire" to my bucket list.

I had read once that his father stated he never pooped. I guess it runs in the family. (Or should I say, it doesn't?) Anyway, I think perpetual constipation helps to explain a lot about the Kims.

Rap, you say? Well, while we're on the topic of mostly bad poetry, I wrote some of my own bad poetry. You can thank me after you have read it once, and then glanced back over it; possibly following a Google search for a word you previously did not know, in some cases.

My poetry's got flow to it, you see
Or is sight obscured by something Shady?
Rock through to metal or rap to hip hop
Only genres, all run by their own pop
Now I dedicate this caustic acrostic to thee
So-called lovers of music, who listen to its slop

The first rule to debating is to understand your opponent's argument so that you may debunk it.

Wait, let me rephrase. The first rule to debating is to yell really loudly and use hyperbole and emotion to brow beat your opponents into being the first to leave the discussion, but the first rule to INTELLIGENT debating is to understand your opponent's argument so that you may debunk it. This you have not attempted to do. To use your own analogy as an example, consider that what your refusal to attempt to see the perspective of your opponents is tantamount to the statement that only men should have a say in whether or not male rapists should be seen as criminals.

But of course, you realize that it's more important to protect the potential victims from the rapists, right? And so all should have equal say in determining that the act is wrong and working to attempt to stop it.

This applies to your opponents' argument in opposition to abortion, as well. Their view is that the fetus is the victim and needs protecting from their assailants. That the sex of the person from whom they believe a fetus needs protection is exclusively female is inconsequential. It is theoretically possible to, at some point in the distant future, adapt male bodies to allow for gestation, and of course the sex of the fetuses whom pro-lifers determine need legal protections can be either male or female. One would assume the same principal that applies to one combination should apply to all others, as well. Your attempts to blindly dismiss a portion of your opponents via an argument of sex-exclusive legitimacy of opinion are absurd, ignorant, ironically sexist, and hypocritical because you very clearly base this very claim upon your own opinion while presuming to tell a portion of your opponents that they may not form an opinion themselves. (I'm just guessing you're male based on your forum avatar.) Worse than all of these things is the fact that you make me look stupid by association, because we both happen to be "pro-choice," in the vernacular.

As much as I love A Song of Ice and Fire, I don't think it really fits in accordance with the OP's request. I quote, "I don't like to be overwhelmed with 10-pages long descriptions of a character's thoughts full of symbols and metaphors, if you catch my drift." That's about 25% of ASoIaF, and it's fully 100% of the Cersei chapters.

Instead, I'd recommend The Warlord Chronicles by Bernard Cornwell. It's easier to get into for a non-reader, it doesn't have long descriptions of character's thoughts and not a lot of allegory to worry about. It's a darker take on the Arthurian takes, with some excellently written combat scenes and ambiguous magic that the reader can accept as being either magical or instead as having more practical explanations.

"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."

This is a repeated maxim in Orwell's 1984, which is an oft-cited but rarely-read book, sadly. Regardless of Orwell's many assumptions, and regardless how you might feel about his brand of jaded socialism, herein lies the one simple truth of freedom, if you understand the context and the meaning. It is the freedom to say that which is true, even if the government does not want you to, or wants to pretend that which is untrue is true. Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four, even if the government wants to say it is five. Freedom is the freedom to say that the NSA spies upon you, and how it does so, even if the government wants to pretend that it does not.

Why do you want to say this two plus two make four? What are the possible indirect results of your math? Inconsequential. If you may say that the truth is the truth, all else follows.

The important question here is not why the press is allowed freedoms others are not, but why should others not all be protected by the same rights? The mere act of engaging in journalism makes you a journalist. Whether you're currently in the employ of The Guardian, or are a blogger, or are tweeting the news, freedom remains the freedom to say that the truth is the truth.

I'm in my 30s and have never tried it, nor do I intend to regardless of legality. I support legalization.

[monotone]Yes. I love my brain slug significant other. You should find a brain slug significant other too. Brain slug significant others for all mankind.

[/monotone]

@mjorh:

"I'm 21 and have passed this being-stupid period of life..." Okay, I'm going to stop you there. 21 is college age, at which point most kids* are either firmly entrenched in their being-stupid periods of life or else are exploring entirely new ways in which to be stupid. Just enjoy it. That's what college is for; learning how to be stupid, better.

"...listening to Linkin Park!"

"...u get from ppl..."

Oh, buddy, you are not helping your case here.

*If you take issue with my calling you a kid, consider the following:

Google search for "college kids": About 8,370,000 results

Google search for "college adults": About 29,700 results

You aren't a teen, but you are still a kid. Now get off my lawn and quit playing that boy band trash.