Converge

O'Reily is nuts. Anne Coluter isn't much better either. The best thing about any personality from Fox is that you can always rely on the glass being Half Crazy.

borntohula raises a key point (in my eyes at least) while he/she didnt say it directly, with our techno-capitalist culture stresses the posession of objects, the amount of community involvment is down. (don't use a exception = rule example of how you volunteer or something to say we are very community based.) With our population size, it is very difficult to 'self-police' or feel as though you have something to gain from active community participation. As long as we have the opportunity to consume, we can be isolated...we'll always have our next shiny thing to provide us with the sense of pride our community can not. I think this has a great deal to do with the need for policing, as isolationism is not conducive of a crime free community.

to see things as screwed up doesnt mean im living in a utopian dream world. Are Amnesty International supporters in a Utopian Dream because they push for human rights? Are the make trade fair campaigns run by Utopian dreamers because they attempt for trade equality? Hardly. an open amission of a problem doesnt mean things are going to change. i agree with Sparg 100% that we are never going to have the system where bullies control. The dream of equality (which i may add has never been a reality) was officially crushed by a)the emergence of the nation state b)industrial revolution generating surplus thus stratifying the populations c)the overwhelming population size. Just because i realize things are screwy does not mean i should sit back and let people get crushed on by pigs. but to sit back and say "meh, i got it good...equality for everyone is utopian. Why bother,i'll collect my things, exploit the rest of the world to enjoy my lavish lifestyle and let the coercive forces keep those grubby bastards in my own country who got nothingn at bay!" is complacent and in my opinion the root of many issues in society today (Policing being one of them)

i would say anyone who thinks we need cops should reexamine their worldview. the need for policing only rises with a divide between the haves and have nots. If people were given a fair chance they wouldn't be forced to resort to "illegal" means of survival. to call a cop names isn't to antagonize them for no reason. it comes with a job. They are required to carry out horrendous jobs against disenfranchised and down on their luck members of the community wether they are good people or not. With the badge on they are nothing more than an extended arm of the state. Not an individual. As for being friends with me. Im not all bad. As for what you are describing without cops is...wait. What we have now, only enforced by cops. (except its minority over majority now)

of course you are entitled to your own opinion. If you think a cop is a pig (or insert any other term that comes to your mind) feel free to tell them so. We live in a democratic nation with full rights to free speech. Go ahead and tell them... but keep in mind, they have a monopoly on legitimate violence...so be sure to respect (read: Fear) the repercussion of speaking your mind to them.

One of my close friends has an interview with the R.C.M.P within the next month or two. i told him as soon as i gets in, he is dead to me. He knows im not kidding. Cops are crooked. Any coersive force is crooked.

i find them to be the same old mainstream softcore in a brand new package. All the traditional hetero-centrist pornographic qualities exist (bi-sexualism, blank stares, submissive poses) and the only change to the image is tattoos and piercings. Still the same old curves and whatnot of the previous pornography. My biggest concern (and what got me asking about them) is the groups of teenie-boppers who rave about this 're-definition' of beauty. Once they buy into it, they'll cheer being accepted for who they are with their tattos and piercings (ohhhhhhhhhhh cuttting edge) and still wonder why if your not skinny with decent boobs people still don't think your hot.

using this quote, i think we are all firing at the same thing from the different angles. It is my position that the upbringing determines more than the abilities people are born with. Its not a natural inate ability to put someone on to the top of their game, but the nurturing they are given through the course of their lives. And if it is the nurturing and development that leads to someone being good, we cannot assume that they were naturals at a sport/event. thats all im saying. As for the insanity remark...that may be just hitting the tip of the iceberg, as i have a tendency to take any position to the extreme.

www.suicidegirls.com (i think) Does this defy tradition or play the same old hat?

they may posess simularities... but to say they are born with a natural talent is insane. There is not natural talent. Hand eye co-ordination at a higher level allowing for better sports, possible. natural talent. no. If im 7. and then a sport is created. or anything (but we will stick with sport) we'll call the sport...."snowboarding" then i try this snowboarding. and i do well. Is it because i was born with a natural talent? How could i have this natural talent? I was already born before someone conseptualized this sport. I, over my lifespan, developed higher hand eye co-ordination, stronger leg muscles, blah blah blah. whatever i took to doing over time, thus developing (constructing) my skills. I was NOT born...NOT born with natural talent. because talent itself is a definition created by society. Talent in hockey is skating good scoring goals, etc etc. What if falling on my ass when i stepped off the bench was the constructed goal of the game? then i'd be a wizard and Torino would be on fire right now cause i'd have smoked the italian teams! Its only a talent people posess because people have determined those things to be talent. (created) In that sense, we all posess natural talent...we just havent had a sport or even come about that praises our complelty chaotic development and construction of reality... how 'simular' are the twins? Did they look alike? Did they have a voice that sounded simular? Were they both nearly the same height? Woooooooooooooooooooow! But seriously, lets here more on these twins. If im going to understand where your coming from, i wouldnt mind the full facts (or more than you've provided) . If you can show me something i was oblivious to...i'll definatly appreciate it!

Well aren't you kinda assuming that they do in the very question? If the attitudes you're talking about are 'colonial', wouldn't all colonials need to possess them by definition? It's a sticky question to get into. It is in no way shape or form a sticky question to get into. Can i fly? Can i breathe underwater? Im not assuming those questions to be true by asking them. Just using the question of colonialism to illiustrate the difficulty in believing in a 'natural' ability. Those who seek to colonize were not given the natural talent to do so. I dont have the natural ability to sink a basketball, and 'the great one' doesn't have the natural ability to play hockey. There is no natural talent.

Wouldn't that imply that its developmental skills, not natural skills? if he didnt play during those developmental periods, he wouldnt have developed those skills. if he wasn't exposed in the critical period, he wouldn't have pulled it off. Like a kitten with his eyes shut, without walter putting the stick in his hands....he'd be blind. Had walter hooked me up with a stick before i could walk right.... Do you think whites have a natural disposition towards colonial attitudes?