Does "radical Islam" refer only to an extremist faction of Islam, or are we talking about all who identify with the Islamic faith? If there's any debate whether it means the latter, then I think it lacks diplomacy and tact and maturity, and a person occupying the Oval Office is justified in avoiding such inflammatory labels.
Context does matter. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) says the president should use the words, but Manchin himself isn't generalizing; he's speaking of acts of ISIS and some who evoke the extremist group, not the whole of the Muslim community.
Regardless of whether Islamic doctrine calls for violence, there are those within the community who strongly believe Islam is inherently a peaceful belief system. It'll be a fruitless endeavor to school people on their own beliefs, and in attempting to do so will undoubtedly ensure nothing useful is achieved in the campaign to end violence.
Holy moly, when did Bill Maher turn into an apologist for RIAA, the healthcare complex and the entire edu-capitalist-rats?
Look, Napster didn't become the music industry's poster child equivalent of dining-and-dashing, but it did an effective job of revealing what an antiquated music distribution system we had. And it showed how to build one that made it easy for music fans to get what they want. And then Apple capitalized on it in a way that got artists paid for their works.
Free college? It doesn't have to be free, but how about NOT locking all the formally accredited knowledge of the universe behind a gigantic paywall? We're still waiting for Khan Academy to disrupt the corrupt university scams and show how inexpensive and efficient a 21st education can be.
Finally, healthcare cost, in case you've been living in a rich-man's bubble, is consuming the earnings of the working man … BEFORE HE EVEN GETS SICK! So while we're holding out for a Steve Jobs-style disruption to get us access to first-aid and disease treatment that leaves bankers at the curb, we’re going to lean on the government a little, if you don’t mind.
Well, they're at it again. We've watched our local Fox affiliate and Mediacom struggle during contract negotiations, and now we see Tribune Broadcasting (owners of Channel 13/Des Moines and WGN-9/Chicago) doing battle. While the two sides negotiate carriage fees, the public posturing has gotten ugly and painful to watch.
It’s hard for the typical viewer to unpack what’s really going on and we’re left to wonder. Is Dish really being a bully and threatening to unfairly yank Channel 13 off its system? Or is Tribune Media using its news anchors and commercial inventory (and coaxing viewers to make demands on its behalf) to extort more money from Dish subscribers for programming that anyone can get free over the air?
In either case, this is the first time I can remember seeing members of our local community and news media -- actual TV news anchors -- being drawn into a fight between multi-billion-dollar corporations in this way. As a 35-year broadcaster it's unsettling to watch news anchors, in the middle of news broadcasts, have to regurgitate from a script, veiled as news, such slanted copy designed to leverage a negotiating position … and by telling viewers to call Dish and do Tribune's bidding.
For our viewers who are Dish subscribers, we want to take a moment to share some important information with you. You're tuned into Channel 13 now because you value our connection to you and to our community. But we need to let you know something. You may lose our news and all programming on WHO-HD, including those Summer Games from Rio because Dish may force us off their system, denying you the shows and events you value, that you pay for. But this doesn't have to happen. You have a powerful vote to cast and you can do it right now. Call Dish at 855-MY-WHO13 and demand that you continue getting Channel 13 and the Summer Olympic Games and all the programs that you care about without any interruption.
YouTuber 'superrick568' posted this video. We presume he is the unseen individual being dressed down by the officer in this video.
Officer "Let me see your ID!" Lentz is an outstanding ambassador for the city of Milwaukee and his department ... with his combative and adversarial tone, saying nothing of his demands for ID and veiled threats. And Sergeant "That's just him!" Carpenter is fine example of a police supervisor ... with her dismissive attitude toward a citizen complaint.
I enjoyed that deflating moment at around 3:15 when Lentz realized he'd been beaten. All he had for you after that point was schoolyard sarcasm.
"On 03/05/16 the Milwaukee police went on a ticket writing bonanza. I filmed this guy and his partner three times in less than an hour. There were so many stops within a 2 mile radius that I couldn't keep up. The third time got to him and he demanded my I.D. ."
Peace Officers
Officer "Let me see your ID!" Lentz, badge #1763
Sergeant "That's just him." Carpenter, badge #389
One of the first techniques you want to see from a police making a stop is de-escalation of a potentially adversarial encounter. But there was none of that here. Officer Lentz was in a fully-escalated mode when he briskly walked up to the individual and got right in his face and demanded ID, refusing to take "no" for an answer.
Officer Lentz was unnecessarily aggressive and hostile, combative, badgering and harassing toward the individual he stopped, shouting commands to "show me your ID!" and lambasting him for "following [the officers] around."
In merely watching the video of the officer's hostile and continuous rain of belligerently yelling orders, the intense verbal tirade against the individual, one senses the intimidation created by the officer during the encounter was palpable to anyone.
I may be bothered most by Sergeant Carpenter's dismissive response to the complaint, saying "That's just him."
CONTROLLING DEMEANOR and REPEATED COMMANDS AMOUNT TO DETENTION
Telling the individual to produce identification and "I wanna know who you are" no less than two-dozen times amounts to a demand by any reasonably peaceful observer. Because of the officer's behavior and commanding tone, no court would have considered this encounter a consensual one; this was a full-on investigative detention.
We don't need to be terribly intimate with the American lexicon to understand the power of veiled threats by police officers. Among the most interesting ones is designed to maintain deniability should he be challenged on it: "I'm only going to tell you once." Or, "I'm going to give you one more chance to comply." The denial: "I never actually threatened [to arrest] him."
What can't be denied, though, is that, even though ambiguously stated, warning that you're only going to say something one more time is both powerful, and a universally-underststood threat that some form of consequences will ensue if complicency isn't achieved quickly and forthrightly -- even if the exact consequences aren't spelled out. In fact, oftentimes it's the vagueness of the threat, the fear of the unknown, that becomes the most intimidating factor of such a veiled threat.
------------------ 0:00 ------------------
(Officer Lentz gets out of car at curbside and approaches superrick568. Lentz's tone indicates a clear frustration.)
------------------ 0:14 ------------------
Officer Lentz
"Okay, now that you're filming me and everything, let me see your ID."
superrick568
"What am I doing?"
Officer Lentz
"Right now?"
superrick568
"Yeah."
Officer Lentz
"Let me see your ID!"
superrick568
"Why?"
Officer Lentz
"Why?"
superrick568
"Yeah, why?"
Officer Lentz
"Because, I wanna know who you are, why you keep following us around. You can film all you want and that's fine with me..."
superrick568
"I know I can."
Officer Lentz
"But I still wanna know who you are."
superrick568
"I'm not asking permission."
Officer Lentz
"I wanna know who you are, so let me see your ID."
superrick568
"Unless I've done something wrong, I'm not going to."
Officer Lentz
"Right now?"
superrick568
"Yeah."
Officer Lentz
"You are doing something wrong."
superrick568
"What's that?"
Officer Lentz
"I just asked you for your identification. I need to know who you are because you are sitting out here filming us. With all the crazy stuff going around in this world nowadays, I am worried ... yes I am ... for my safety, their safety (pointing to his left) and anybody else out here right now."
superrick568
"Uh huh."
Officer Lentz
"You can keep filming me. Let me see your ID. I'm gonna take a look and then you can film me all you want."
------------------ 1:00 ------------------
superrick568
"What's my ID gonna tell you?"
Officer Lentz
"It's gonna tell me who you are and make sure that you're not somebody that's doing crazy things out here."
superrick568
"How you gonna tell that by my [identification]?"
Officer Lentz
"Because I'm gonna run you."
superrick568
"That's not gonna tell you anything..."
Officer Lentz
"Yes it is. Go ahead and bring it out. You can film me all day, brother, I don't care."
superrick568
"I haven't done anything wrong."
Officer Lentz
"That's why they're called field contact interviews. Now you've brought yourself to us, now I wanna know who you are!"
superrick568
"Uh huh."
Officer Lentz
"So let me see your ID, please."
------------------ 1:26 ------------------
superrick568
“Is that a lawful request?”
Officer Lentz
“Yes it is.”
superrick568
“Or an order?”
Officer Lentz
“Na-I'm asking you, let me see your driver's license or your ID please.”
superrick568
“I'm denying that.”
Officer Lentz
“Okay then, why don't you just turn around and walk away.”
superrick568
“Cuz I'm not going to.”
Officer Lentz
“Then let me see your ID. I'm only gonna ask you one more time.”
superrick568
“Wait, I just asked you…“
Officer Lentz
“Let me see your ID.”
superrick568
“I just ask you if...”
Officer Lentz
“I just asked you, and I gave you my reason why I'm out here talking to you now.”
superrick568
“Unless I've violated...”
Officer Lentz
“Now I want...you are violating my rights right now”
superrick568
“Why?”
Officer Lentz
“Because you're stopping us from doing our job pertaining to him over there.”
superrick568
“But he's still doing it.”
Officer Lentz
“There's two of us here. There's two of 'em in the car. Right now you are creating a disturbance. “
superrick568
“I'm not creating a disturbance.”
Officer Lentz
“Yes you are.”
superrick568
“I'm not in your investigation at all.”
Officer Lentz
“You're taking me away...”
superrick568
“I'm 25 to 30 feet away.”
Officer Lentz
“Yes you are. You're taking away our concern because I gotta look for our safety, I gotta look for our safety as well as theirs' in the car. Let me see your ID.”
superrick568
“All I got is a camera.”
Officer Lentz
“I'm asking you, let me see your ID.”
superrick568
“Sir, I've done nothing wrong.”
Officer Lentz
“Yes you are! You're interrupting our investigation here.”
superrick568
“What statute is that?”
Officer Lentz
“What did I just tell you? It's a safety-for officers and for the people in the car. You followed from over there, and Tower, all the way over here, and now you got my concern going. You can film all you want, I don't have a problem with that. Okay? But I do wanna know who you are. And yes…”
Officer Lentz
“You're being filmed, too.”
superrick568
“Alright. Good.”
Officer Lentz
“So let me see your ID.”
superrick568
“Unless I've violated a law...”
Officer Lentz
“A field- a contact- a field interview contact I can ask you for your information, yes I can.”
superrick568
“Sir, I'm not gonna give you any ID.”
Officer Lentz
“Let me see your ID.”
superrick568
“I'm not gonna give you any.”
Officer Lentz
“Why not?”
superrick568
“Cuz I don't have to. Because I've...”
Officer Lentz
“You got something to hide from me?”
superrick568
“I didn't do-I-I...”
Officer Lentz
“I'm asking you, you got something to hide from me?”
superrick568
“I didn't do anything to show you an ID.”
Officer Lentz
“Right now you did. You're creating my … awareness …”
superrick568
“Will you call your supervisor?”
Officer Lentz
“… and you brought me out here.”
superrick568
“Can you call your supervisor?”
Officer Lentz
“I can bring- I can call a supervisor.”
superrick568
“Call 'em out here.”
------------------ 3:15 ------------------
(Officer Lentz turns around and appears to be making a radio call)
For me, living a sous vide life means to...
- Buy in bulk
- Vacuum pack meal courses
- cook-chill/cook-freeze
- Cook foods gently and thoroughly, to the desired doneness, at precisely controlled temperatures
Benefits...
- Volume priced food
- Fast, no-fuss meal prep
- Non-critical cook times
- Meals are consistently delicious
- No waste
- Less cleanup
- Cost savings
- Better food safety
- Refrigerator is less cluttered
- It's healthier (portioning helps me to keep an eye on my calorie intake)
I buy fresh chicken, beef, pork and frozen vegetables at sale prices, portion for meals, vacuum package it, pre-cook/pasteurize, then store in the refrigerator or chest freezer. In the morning I cut open lunch courses and put them in a microwavable container for work. I can drop dinner courses in the sous vide bath either before or after work.
I've spent $960 on gear & gadgets to facilitate my new life (so far), but I think it saves even more than that over the course of a year between the grocery store and restaurants (by virtue of fewer visits thereto) and spoilage of leftovers.
My setup...
- Ary VacMaster VP112S chamber vacuum sealer ($525)
- VonShef 8-liter sous vide water oven ($99)
- Gourmia GSV130 sous vide immersion circulator ($129)
- Rubbermaid 12-quart commercial polycarbinate food container ($16.25)
- Kenmore 12702 7.2 cu. ft. Chest Freezer, White ($189.99)
I've asked my Iowa Assembly members Sen. Matt McCoy and Rep. Jo Oldson to help stop Iowa House Study Bill 130 and Senate Study Bill 1228.
If passed and signed by Gov. Branstad these bills would immediately create a brand new law called "Iowa Transportation Network Company Insurance Act" designed to crush taxicab competition by putting draconian burdens on rideshare drivers, ultimately resulting in fewer transportation options for Iowans and prospective Iowans, as well as tourists.
We need an environment in Iowa that allows innovation and free market competition to flourish, and this is a step in the wrong direction.
Poverty exists because too many workers aren't paid equitably by corporate American capitalists for the fruits of their labor, limiting consumer spending, which hurts the economy, which kills jobs, creating high unemployment, which creates the need for a compulsory levy on other people's earnings to pay into the welfare system.
The business model of corporate America is to keep labor costs as low as possible, but if small businesses on Main Street shared in that kind of greed (essentially pocketing more than their fair share of the profits, which they enjoy thanks in large measure to their labor force), they’d be run out of town.
In recent years, corporate America has been able to get away with paying low wages precisely because of the high unemployment they caused in the first place; more workers competing for fewer jobs facilitates a low-wage climate.
A lot of the job loss in this country is permanent because U.S. companies have been pushing production offshore, exacerbating an already poor economy.
It is the proliferation of big business and their political campaign funding that has hurt the U.S. economy.
The only way to fix the problem is by creating a system that doesn’t provide financial rewards for the current business model.
1. The first step is to eliminate the giant teat of the individual taxpaying collective by constitutional amendment. In other words, end individual income taxes. (Not including capital gains and Wall Street speculation.) In this way, campaign contributions would go to shrinking government spending, since all tax revenues would come directly out of corporations’ pockets instead of the low hanging fruit of the weaker class: the worker, lobbies would have incentive to do only that.
2. The second step is to tax commerce where it occurs, not where the corporation happens to be headquartered. It’s not fair for a company to be penalized by virtue of the geography of their home office when its success comes from the markets it serves well.
3. Eliminate compulsory contracts, both directly by mandate and those indirectly by necessity. This stops insurance companies from amassing fortunes on the back of the free market system, allowing prices for services to soar unchecked. This will also dissolve large pools of capital, which are sitting targets for frivolous litigation.
4. Shift all sales taxes to the seller and require that all advertised consumer prices are the actual, total, final prices … after all taxes, fees and surcharges. This puts integrity back in consumer-business dealings and provides price transparency and eliminates obscuring actual costs behind hidden additional costs to consumers, restoring consumer trust.
If having the more persuasive pitch in a competition between radio and television is considered stealing, then guilty as charged. Many people operate on the full faith and credit of bad information in perpetuity, and the conventional wisdom on Madison Avenue is no exception.
Here are my top five reasons radio advertising is better than television advertising:
5) TV advertising is overpriced chiefly because it's easily disrupted by technology and a general collective attention deficit in the real world.
4) One doesn't require a study to prove that images are nearly superfluous in marketing; most people know innately that the most significant, powerful and lasting impressions in our memories are made by audio input to the brain.
3) The best marketing value in radio and social media is derived from the power of a personal recommendation from familiar, credible people; you don't need pictures for that, but sound is our most penetrating cue.
2) Without an intuitive presumption, reinforced by the ad industry, that television is just better because it delivers motion and color, we can all understand on a primal level how disinterested people are in what we have to show. It's hard not to notice that you can't sit in the same room with a person and keep their eyes on you for very long?
1) The most significant reason people get your message is because they have no earlids.
I was in the empty lobby of a police precinct, unwittingly there just to rest a moment, to calm my anxiety and collect my thoughts.
There was a faint sound of conversation in an adjacent office. "He was a white, middle-aged man on a bicycle..." were the first words I heard plainly. And it was a familiar female voice.
It's true. Minutes earlier it had been me that was flying my bike down a crowded city street, possibly causing alarm and panic, whizzing past a lady that looked a lot like a blonde TV-cop -- who, in a predictably commanding tone, screamed out, "Stop and get back here right now!"
She might not have been a cop, I thought. And even if she was who knows who she was screaming at? It felt like I was evading a cop.
Things are moving fast. Time to get out of the area. Time to assess the situation, I thought, turning a corner, ditching the bike, and stepping into the first public building I came to.
Alarmed myself now, realizing I was the subject of this field report to the authorities, I swiftly ducked away through a corridor, where I stumbled on a somewhat interesting shipping tube laying atop a trash bin. Inexplicably I swept it up to have a closer examination while on my brisk walk. But the sound of a conversation between Patricia Arquette, the actual actress, and two men I presume were a pair of detectives, caught me off guard. "That guy," Patricia said assuredly. I slowly looked up as I paused.
They gave me a silent stare that felt like minutes. I returned a look, vowing to myself not to say a word while they analyzed me. As I began to realize just how virtuous silence can be, I confidently and calmly turned and continued down the corridor. No one stopped me. I'd managed to flee the scene without incident or objection.
"Clever," I heard one of the men say as I stepped out of sight. "The only evidence is sealed by federal postal law." They must have thought I'd hidden something in the shipping tube I merely thought looked cool ... as if I'd have had the wherewithal to contemplate such a calculated maneuver. A parcel is safe harbor from search & seizure, I imagined. That, along with my instinctive silence, saved the day.
A palpable sense of relief washed over me as I climbed back onto my bike. I can only imagine the conversation that transpired amongst the trio after I'd left. Lacking a real crime, I bet the detectives dismissed Ms. Arquette with polite platitudes.
So Friday SCOTUS nixed states' arbitrary restrictions on marriage, restoring civil rights owed to couples of like gender. And before day's end, the always sensational Rep. Steve King (R-Ia.) predictably argued that decision is oustside the court's purview, calling it "judicial fiat."
Apparently they're members of the Grand Old Party, conservatives & libertarians, except when those principles conflict with a certain world view.
You may remember '09 when the King scare machine reacted to Iowa's top-court ruling striking down this state's restriction on gay marriage, fearing that decision "turns immediately Iowa into a Mecca for same-sex marriage." He warned of "weekend [travel] packages being planned right now." And the fear language didn't stop there. "We'll be the Las Vegas of same-sex marriage for America if the legislature doesn't act now," King asserted. At the time he called on the Iowa Assembly and then-Governor Chet Culver (D-Ia.) to move quickly to require residency for marriage ... "right now, before the planes start landing in Des Moines," as if they might be loaded with WMD.
Let's be clear. A fundamental duty of the high court is to hold states' authority in check, protecting individuals' Constitutional protections from Gestapo-style government imposition where ever necessary.
Instead King, applying a bizarre sort of acrobatics to language and logic that even a 5-year-old can see through, today claims this country "cannot tolerate a Supreme Court that would impose their will on the rest of this country."
Striking down same-sex marriage bans in no way creates a restrictive imposition on others. Efforts by Congressman King, right-wing religious lobbyists like Bob Vander Plaats and pundits like Jan Mickelson to paint certain kinds of marriages as "weakening the institution" are absurd, and their attempts to moore their false logic in mythology can't mask their scalding bigotry. They can only point to religious symbolism in order to criticize Friday's ruling. Must we remind him there are no references to "holy matrimony" in the Constitution?
America is not a compendium of special clubs who get to use government as a tool to impose their wants on the "those people" whose behavior they despise. Being an American means a lot of different things to different people, but it can never mean you have a right not to be offended.
We've covered the levels of police encounters before and I don't like to spend too much time on covered ground, but I discovered a very nicely made instructional video with an excellent example of a non-consensual encounter without justification that quickly escalated to an arrest without any cause.
