Ten oz

I do not understand this response? I outlined steps the government took toward driving safety and the dramatic improvement it has had reducing vehicles deaths. The number of deaths have more than been cut in half despite an increase in the number of people on U.S. roads. Nothing in your response seems to acknowledge or comment on that. Do you agree or disagree with government action on driver safety? "If someone has the right to vote, the ability to vote, and chooses not to vote, that is their problem", this is the opposite of teamwork. We are part of one country. The more people we leave behind the weaker our country is. No modern industrialized nation in the world succeeds with a government that takes an active role in education, healthcare, infrastructure, land management, safety, and etc. Humans are a cooperative species. We exceed through planning and organization. You do for you and I do for me is not how we got from caves to skyscrapers.

Safe driving is a personal responsibility. Do you agree with all the government has done to make driving safer? Some people lament that the government shouldn't force them to wear seat belts while over the years different auto companies have complained about the financial burden of of installing air bags, crumple zones, shatter proof glass, and etc. The transportation department was established in the late 60's and was seen by many as just more big government that bloats spending. Yet the results have been undeniably positive. from the late 40's through the earlier 80's there was basically over 20 deaths per 100k people per year in the united states. The height running from 66' - 73' when every year saw more than 25 deaths per 100k people. Today that number has been reduce to 10 a year per 100k people. That is an impressive improvement and it was accomplished through government taking action and not via a ground swell of person responsibility. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year

If I managed an amusement park and day after day month after month across different demographics my park had a problem with people urinating on the landscaping rather than properly locating a restroom I would install more restrooms. Perhaps those people urinating should be more responsible. Perhaps hiring more security and installing cameras would be a successful deterrent to people urinating on the landscaping. I could spin my wheels going after people or I could just resolve the problem by adding restrooms. Assuming that all people are equal there is going to be a structural component in place when overwhelming groups of people behave a certain way. Governments can work to identify and resolve those structural components or endless chase their tales try to enforce personal behavior.

When something systematically effects millions of people I believe arguing for person responsibility rather than institutional change is both cynical and futile.

@ hypervalent_iodine, I was not looking to belabor the big pharma angle. You had asked for stats so I provided them. I feel compelled to disagree that there is no way to predict which drugs. Pain killers and opiods have been the usual suspects. I also believe the government has a role to play. Sure a person can overdose on anything but when specific drugs are almost exclusively creating havoc to a specific society I believe the issue is beyond personal responsibility. "The number of prescriptions for opioids (like hydrocodone and oxycodone products) have escalated from around 76 million in 1991 to nearly 207 million in 2013, with the United States their biggest consumer globally, accounting for almost 100 percent of the world total for hydrocodone (e.g., Vicodin) and 81 percent for oxycodone (e.g., Percocet). This greater availability of opioid (and other) prescribed drugs has been accompanied by alarming increases in the negative consequences related to their abuse. For example, the estimated number of emergency department visits involving nonmedical use of opioid analgesics increased from 144,600 in 2004 to 305,900 in 2008 treatment admissions for primary abuse of opiates other than heroin increased from one percent of all admissions in 1997 to five percent in 2007; and overdose deaths due to prescription opioid pain relievers have more than tripled in the past 20 years, escalating to 16,651 deaths in the United States in 2010." http://www.drugabuse.gov/about-nida/legislative-activities/testimony-to-congress/2014/americas-addiction-to-opioids-heroin-prescription-drug-abuse This thread is not about prescription drug abuse. I do not want to steer it off topic. I am also not looking to rage against big pharma which does do a lot of good. So perhaps we can agree to disagree and I will post later on when I have something more pointedly animal research to post.

*disclaimer* I am not a vegetarian or a vegan. I eat poultry and fish. No red meat. I have thought about this issue some. Whether or not there are health benefits to vegetarianism and veganism. They certainly have been shown to help with some of the biggest health issues facing the developed world. According to the ADA, vegetarians are at lower risk for developing: Heart disease Colorectal, ovarian, and breast cancers Diabetes Obesity Hypertension (high blood pressure) http://www.brown.edu/Student_Services/Health_Services/Health_Education/nutrition_&_eating_concerns/being_a_vegetarian.php The argument against generally seems to center around what is "natural" for humans. People say that humans have always eaten meat and our need for vitamins such as B12 is evidence that humans need meat. While it is indisputable that humans do need B12 it is debatable from what source human traditional got it. I also think which type of meat humans naturally have eaten through the millennia it is debatable. The human form is not designed to take down, kill, and eat game animals. We do not have the teeth or jaw muscles to take a bit out of any moderate sized mammal. Nor do humans have the speed, strength, or agility to catch and kill any moderately sized mammal with our bare hands. So imo it is highly unlikely humans evolved eating the sort of game meat often attributed to various prehistorical hominids. It is more likely early humans got the bulk of their B12, calcium, zinc, riboflavin, and etc from insects. Primates eat insects as part of their regular diet and I assume our ancestors did as well. Fish, eggs, and reptiles were probably the next largest source of protein and the above mentioned vitamins. The bulk of their diets were most likely fruits, nuts, and other other plant based wild edibles. Larger mammals were opportunity based meals that may or may not have presented themselves. As humans became more intelligent and were able to build weapons, conceive of traps, and organize strategies larger animals became obtainable. Of course those larger mammals required cutting up and cooking because neither our teeth or stomachs could handle them straight up. So the error on the side of natural would be lots of berry, nuts, roots, and bugs with some seasonal fish, eggs, snake and the occasional bone marrow from a large red blooded mammal. Of course humans are unique. We can "choose" how we eat. Our intellect allows us to prepare food as necessary to match our needs. We can remove the lactose from milk, Pure sugar from cane, fortify grain, turn maze into corn, distill alcohol, and etc to meet our needs. So I see the argument that humans must eat meet because it is natural and we need to as an exaggeration that neither accurately portrays history or acknowledges where we currently stand. Beef, pork, chicken, Salmon, and etc are not necessary food sources. Crickets, beetle, ants, turtles, and etc contain all the same essential vitamins and arguably have less downside both physically and environmentally. I am not advocating eating insects and reptiles but rather am highlighting what I see as a false dichotomy. Our choices are not between today's beef obsessed culture vs vegetarianism with eating beef as the more natural of the two. We have lots of other options.

Drug overdose was the leading cause of injury death in 2012. Among people 25 to 64 years old, drug overdose caused more deaths than motor vehicle traffic crashes.1 Drug overdose death rates have been rising steadily since 1992 with a 117% increase from 1999 to 2012 alone.1 In 2012, 33,175 (79.9%) of the 41,502 drug overdose deaths in the United States were unintentional, 5,465 (13.2%) were of suicidal intent, 80 (0.2%) were homicides, and 2,782 (6.7%) were of undetermined intent.1 In 2011, drug misuse and abuse caused about 2.5 million emergency department (ED) visits. Of these, more than 1.4 million ED visits were related to pharmaceuticals.2 Between 2004 and 2005, an estimated 71,000 children (18 or younger) were seen in EDs each year because of medication overdose (excluding self-harm, abuse and recreational drug use).4 Among children under age 6, pharmaceuticals account for about 40% of all exposures reported to poison centers.5 In 2012, of the 41,502 drug overdose deaths in the United States, 22,114 (53%) were related to pharmaceuticals.6 Of the 22,114 deaths relating to pharmaceutical overdose in 2012, 16,007 (72%) involved opioid analgesics (also called opioid pain relievers or prescription painkillers), and 6,524 (30%) involved benzodiazepines.6 (Some deaths include more than one type of drug.) In 2011, about 1.4 million ED visits involved the nonmedical use of pharmaceuticals. Among those ED visits, 501,207 visits were related to anti-anxiety and insomnia medications, and 420,040 visits were related to opioid analgesics.2 Benzodiazepines are frequently found among people treated in EDs for misusing or abusing drugs.2 People who died of drug overdoses often had a combination of benzodiazepines and opioid analgesics in their bodies.6 http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/overdose/facts.html I was worried that my last post would seem like an attack on pharmaceutical companies. It was not. I tried to present an example of an industry that was doing animal testing where not all of that testing necessarily served the public's interest. Without question the pharmaceutical industry does important work that does serve the public's interest. My point was that ALL of it does not. Some of the animal testing they do is not necessary just as some of the drugs they create do more harm than good. My view is not that animal testing should be illegal. I would just like to see the Government more actively work to discourage it. Animal testing should only be used when the tests are attempts serve the public good. and that public good shouldn't be profit.

Of course. My point was that it isn't a problem specific to Ferguson. It is also improving with time. So any argument that it such be better and they (Ferguson) should already have this, that, or the other is ignoring history.

Not all research is vital. For example the common good/health of humanity is not served by drug companies producing new drugs that help save or make huge profits. Prescription drugs are now the leading cause of drug deaths in the United States and prescription drug abuse if as bad or worse an epidemic as illicit drug abuse. These drug underwent animal testing and human trials before being approved to prescribe yet many serve no real benefit to society. They just help share holders. I believe the system should be more discriminating. Unless there is a clear public benefit fees and long waiting periods should be applied to those looking to perform animal testing. The Government could waive barriers to research which serves a societal need. Of course the outcome of research can not be know in advance. Many discoveries are accidents. But the pharmaceutical industry has been 2 steps forward and a step back. Some might argue 2 forward 2 or more back. They produce an ever growing variety of pain killers for profit that are increasingly fed by recreational use. Animal testing should not support that and if it is going to companies should at least be unconvinced. The money from collected fees could be used to pay for research that does attempt to serve a societal need.

The government fees I mentioned, as with all government fees, can be waived or supplemented. I don't see any problem with making a lab wait months to start testing. Exemptions can be made for time sensitive cases. The emphasis for me is creating an atmosphere where other forms of testing become more desirable. Not blocking any specific group from access if truly needed.

@ Zapatos, as has already been discussed here many police officers around the country do not live in the communities they police. http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/most-police-dont-live-in-the-cities-they-serve/ In Oakland, Ca for example: "Just 9 percent of Oakland's current 644 police officers actually live in Oakland, according to data provided by OPD. Adding civilian OPD staff who also live outside of Oakland, the total number of police department employees who do not reside in the city is about 785, more than 70 percent of the department's total workforce. The city paid these non-Oakland employees roughly $126 million in salary, overtime, and benefits in the 2010-2011 fiscal year. In other words, Oakland taxpayers are exporting up to 86 percent of OPD's payroll, a huge sum of money, to surrounding suburbs." http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/the-high-costs-of-outsourcing-policeandnbsp/Content?oid=3306199&showFullText=true Government jobs are stable good paying jobs. When hundreds of millions of dollars leave a city it has a depressing effect on the city's economy. That $126 million in police salary for example if kept local would being supporting restaurants, stores, real estate, and etc. Instead it just leaves and local industry suffers which in turn hurts the revenue of the city itself since the city gets its revenue from taxes and fees. This impacts schools and other local services. "OAKLAND -- A new study on teacher pay puts this city's public schools close to the bottom of the 125 largest school districts nationwide when you consider each city's cost of living. The study released Wednesday by the Washington, D.C.- based National Council on Teacher Quality ranks Oakland's school district 121st out of 125 when comparing starting salary, the salary at the end of a teacher's career and lifetime earnings over 30 years." http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_27053533/oakland-teacher-pay-among-lowest-u-s So why don't lower income people get out there and vote? Why don't people in Ferguson just vote in an all local everything? The answer is not that straight forward. The poorer a person is the less likely they are to vote. Regardless of race or location. This is not something unique to Ferguson. It is systematic throughout the country. However the numbers are improving. More poorer people vote today. Your question has a long history that is not fully being addressed nor is the fact that it has been improving. It is better than it's been and you are asking why it isn't even better still. "Turnout rates among low-income Americans have increased in recent years, with these citizens voting at higher levels in recent elections than at any since the mid-1960s, as shown in Figure 2." http://www.demos.org/data-byte/voter-turnout-income-2008-us-presidential-election

I am not entirely against animal testing. I just think that the government should make it expensive to do via fees. There are many different ways to problem solve. Industry prefers the less expensive ways. Make animal testing expensive and and industry will only do it when it is out of other options. It would also encourage different groups to share on research rather than each having to front the cost for their own.

Wondering why doesn't change the fact that it is. The pattern exists throughout the country and not only in Ferguson. Predominately black communities are most often under the leadership and supervision of people from outside the community. People who have less invested in the community. When a pattern repeats city after city, county after county, and state after state there is usually something systematic in place. If not what are you implying?

Terrific point. What you described is nonexistent in the community you highlighted. Meanwhile it is the standard in black communities.

This whole post is pure speculation. Like I already pointed out you aren't supporting anything with data. So there isn't really anything to debate. You are posting opinions and impressions while using TV shows as your source. What are the main or most common sources of police interaction? I have a tough time believing prostitution ranks particularly high.

"Cops" is a reality TV show. They (the producers) pick and choose what to air based on what will get the biggest audience. It is not a direct unedited look at the typical day in the life of. So I have a problem using that show as a foundation which supports the outline examples you specifically want addressed. I am unaware of any data that supports your 3 examples as being particularly prevalent catalysts for citizen to police interaction. For example; do more people interact with police as a result of prostituting than as a result of traffic stops? Do more people interact with police as the result of breaking and enter than for being drunken in public? Do more people interact with police for being part of street gangs than for domestic violence? Do you have any statistical analyst on what prompts the most interaction or is it all based on the TV show cops? Anyways, I will address your examples: 1 - The clearance rate (percentage of cases solved) for property crimes, which covers breaking and entering, in the United States is less than a quarter. So the overwhelming majority of such cases are unsolved. So the answer to your question; I don't know. Any attempt to affirmatively answer that question is speculative. "Among property crimes, 21.5 percent of larceny-theft offenses, 12.7 percent of burglary offenses, and 11.9 percent of motor vehicle theft offenses were cleared." http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/clearances 2 - There are higher end escort services and brothels but I assume your question is directed at the low street walking sub-segment specifically. Simply having a below average income does not make someone a good candidate for street walking prostitution. Drug addiction, childhood physical abuse, mental illness, and other factors are thing psychology have identified. Economic status is not the key issue. 75% of prostitutes were molested as children. That is a key issue. http://www.veronicasvoice.org/statistics/ 3 - I am not sure I understand this example. How would a police officer know someone is part of a gang just seeing them walking down the street?

I am with you. I see a successful conspiracy in the JFK case as a very low probability. I wish was educated enough o the topic to play devil's advocate a little but I am not. I actually think the Robert Kennedy's assassination is more interesting because is at least Sirhan Sirhan is still alive to be interviewed.

Firstly, I do not believe in any JFK conspiracy. My initial comment was simply that I believe conspiracy is possible in general. Not that I know of any that had been. If you were to say I had ZERO proof that there was a conspiracy surround JFK's death I would not be able to refute that. I do not have any evidence nor do I claim that there was a conspiracy surrounding JFK. As for WMD's and the Golf of Tonkin both are known today but for their time they served their purpose. Both got us into wars for false reasons known to be false at the time. As for examples successful conspiracies that we don't know about; we don't know what we don't know. Perhaps there have been some perhaps there has not. I am not advocating any specific conspiracy.

While going to School in San Francisco as a younger man I worked Security for a multi highrise building complex in the financial district. The majority of the tenants were high income Lawyers and Accountants. I would estimate that about a third of my day was spend following or questioning people based on complaints from tenants. A typical complaint would be something simple as someone calling security to report a "suspicious" person in the parking garage. In almost every cases that "suspicious" person turned out to be someone who belonged in the building but was not visibly affluent like so many others in the building. As security I would walk in the garage scan around for a few seconds seeing suits and briefcases everywhere then notice one out of place person in jeans and sweatshirt and most of time that was the "suspicious" person that had been described to me. And yes, they were almost always black or latino. So I would then either follow them or stop n' question them to find out why they were there. I was obligated to do so because we had received a complaint. It was normally just someone who worked in a mail room, someones bother or son there to drop something off, or held some service job in the building that did not afford them expensive clothes. By virtue of the way they looked and how other perceived them these people received extra interactions with security. Their behavior was more highly scrutinized and they were watched on camera, followed by security, and often challenged. They did nothing to bring that upon themselves. There was crime at the complex. Office burglars were a big problem. They were/are people who would dress up in nice professional business clothes walk into an office build and walk around floor after floor taking gold pens, ipods, small pieces of art, wallets, and etc off peoples desks. Then escape by leisurely strolling out the lobby. If stopped they would just make up some fake attorney they were in the building to see and for the most part they moved about indiscriminately. They were invisible. Tenants did not notice them because they blended in. No one was ever suspicious of the guy with a nice hair cut and suit. Funny story....sorry, I had meant for this to be a shorter response; one tenant was some type of art collector. He had a rare book that specifically chronicled the life of some turn of the century Norwegian artist. For the life of me I can not remember the artists name or discipline. Anyway his book went missing. So I and the janitorial supervisor were called to the tenants office where the tenant insisted one of the night shift janitors had stolen his book. He claimed the the previous week he had been looking through the book while one of the janitors had been in his office cleaning and they must had seen the book. According to him the book was worth thousands of dollars. So we (janitorial sup and I) were obligated to question the janitors. When we finished, no janitor remembered anything about any book, the janitorial sup. Made me laugh. He said something to the effect of "these janitors have 50 rooms clean. You could put the Mona Lisa in the trash and they would just take it out and keep moving". Sure enough the guy found his book. He had misplaced it but never elaborated where. Sadly he still insisted that the janitors only be allowed to clean his office during the day when he was there. So the Sup. had to re-work the an already tight schedule to accommodate. His error became janitorial burden. Alright, enough storytelling. " do socially and economically disadvantaged people bring police attention to themselves ?" I do not believe so. Economically disadvantaged people are more highly scrutinized and as a result are on a much shorter leash. High income people feel more suspicious and threaten by lower income people. This results in the police being called on lower income people more frequently. Think about it; if you are behind the register of a corner store and a man that looks homeless walks in at the same time as a man in a nice suit which one would you keep a closer eye on?

Golf of Tonkin and weapons of mass destruction in Iraq quickly come to mind.

I mostly agree. I have seen multiple negatives given to posts without replies where the post being accumulating the negs did not seem offensive or out of line. Sometimes certain posters team up on issues they are passionate about. Which is fine. I just don't like seeing more neg/pos points than actual posts. This is a forum after all. The objective is to discuss things right?

I believe DNA contains more information than yet fully understood. Perhaps ideas, fears, beliefs, and etc important to survival is coded and stored. Perhaps some family members (children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, etc) share much more than eye color with one another. Perhaps a whole psyche is shared. Nothing an individual would be conscious of though. That is as close to resurrection as I get. Even then I concede such an idea it is not well supported by data and has a high likelihood of not being on base.

Truth grows and evolves and more information is obtained. The full truth about many things isn't yet and perhaps will never be known because there is always more to know. However there are things that are untrue. We can still distinguish real from unreal, truth from lies, and etc.

I have been on other forums where it is made public who liked or disliked a specific post. Perhaps that might be something to consider here. If posters felt more compelled to stand behind the reps they give perhaps they would be more cautious in how they award them. I personally don't like seeing threads where a poster has multiple negative rep points yet the thread itself has no responses. We should be posting our thoughts and not merely clicking yea or nay.

@ Mordred, thank you. @ the OP, philosophically your theory is cool. I can imagine TV shows or games based on the premise. However no evidence is provided to support it. So there isn't much here to discuss. What are the working theories that support our universe is inside of another and what math supports that? What of forces; does each universe (mind) have there own forces and physics? You alluded to each universe having different time.