"Person."

Yeah, he was walking down the middle of the street, blocking traffic. That is a weird and dangerous thing to do, and is obviously a matter of public safety, which is exactly the kind of things cops are supposed to look after.

Citizen? They use the word "civilian" like it's something we are and they aren't. They're civilians, too. They're not in the military.

I'm still furious about the flashbanged baby thing.

The entire circus around Michael Brown was media-generated. Perhaps I need my tinfoil hat adjusted, but I think deliberately so. It's like it was purposely pushed to make black people get up in arms, when clearly, most people looking rationally at the case can wish it didn't happen, but can hardly blame the cop. Brown wasn't innocent; he robbed a store. He wasn't just minding his own business until cops hassled him because he was black; he was walking in the middle of the street. I want cops to stop people walking in the middle of the street and ask them wtf they're doing. He was not an "unarmed teenager;" he was a 300lb man who punched the cop. What the hell? When you drive that story in the media, people like my father who don't think police brutality is a problem take notice of the story, say "this is what the liberals are complaining about? They're morons!" it confirms his biases and he goes right back to ignoring the problem.

Where's the outrage and the marches and protests and media helicopters over flashbanged babies? SWAT teams busting down doors at 3am to serve search warrants? "Overwhelming force?" Budgets that rely on "civil forfeiture" which is literally highway robbery? No, the media pushes the non-story of Michael Brown. Muddies the issue. Ignores the real problems.

It's a conspiracy. A C-O-N...spiracy.

Not that they were necessarily "better" but I think the attitudes of police towards the public have indeed changed over the past forty years. Forty years ago there weren't SWAT teams. The cops did not bash down your door, throw in flash bangs and shoot your dog to serve a simple search warrant. They....knocked on the door.

Did they always lie (well, they have to and there's nothing wrong with that so long as it's not under oath), plant drugs on people, shoot black people? Yeah. But damn if they weren't more polite about it.

The "us vs them" mentality wasn't so readily apparent. Maybe it was there and we just didn't notice because there weren't cell phone cameras, and they were mainly doing it to black people. Still, I don't remember cops 15 years ago driving APCs, in body armor, all black, and referring to citizens as "civilians." Now I hear that routinely. If we're civilians...what exactly are you? And what exactly is our relationship?

Ya know, to be honest, that wouldn't be that bad. So long as the cause was somehow noble, and they had to use their brains to find a sneaky, non-violent solution to a problem instead of just blowing shit up...

I'd prefer exploration and maybe a suspenseful first contact, trying to understand a truly alien species before conflict erupts. But anything where they don't just immediately jump to photon torpedoes and punching would be a step up.

No, the Matrix was a work of art. The last thing I want is for them to ruin it with a sequel. Thank God they never made any.

That's been my take from the beginning. There's no way they're canning the movie. They want money. Even if the bomb threats had teeth (which they don't), Sony does not give two fucks about people being blown up.

So they pretend to cancel it. Internet freaks out. Senators and the goddamn President of the United States say "you guys should release this movie!" And now their middling picture that barely anybody would have seen or heard about is the most talked about picture of the year. So after some soul* searching, chats with their spiritual advisors, and a big-girl cry, Sony will "bravely" release their mediocre movie to thunderous applause and ticket sales.

Fuuuuuuuuuuuckkkkkkk yoooooooooouuuuuuu Sony.

*lololololololol as if anyone at Sony has a soul!

Pretty much.

I've vacationed at a few all-inclusive resorts in the Caribbean and Mexico. Some "nice" ones that are ~$250/night and a few VERY nice ones that are ~$600/night. But the accommodations are amazing, and it's all you can drink, all you can eat. I would eat three dinners. Once at the steak house, once at the sushi place, and then a 2AM BLT from room service, without touching my wallet. Not bad!

Well once I went to a place in the Dominican Republic called Casa de Campo for a wedding. This is not a place for rich people. This is a place for wealthy people. There's $100 million yachts at the marina. It's a walled fortress of wealth surrounded by abject poverty. It's the only place on the island with a water treatment plant where you could actually drink the water, but they won't let you. It's only evian or perrier at the restaurants. Tap water? Like out the toilet?

Anyway, food at this place was ridiculously expensive. Like, a fruit plate was $20. It's a bunch of fucking bananas. What, do they export them and then re-import them so they'll be more expensive? You couldn't have a light lunch without spending $80. And I thought "this is ridiculous! When I go to the all-inclusive resorts, it's all just take what you want! And this is a way nicer, more expensive place! Why bother with the accounting?" And then I realized, oh. The people here could not give two shits about an $80 lunch with a $50 bar bill. It's just charged to their room and when they leave there's another $1000 for food and beverage on there and who gives a fuck.

At higher-end places they charge you for everything because nobody's watching the bill because they don't care. It's only us poor people who care about money.

So, what you're saying is there's going to be lots of close-up cuts of Sulu stomping on the Enterprise's clutch and forcefully downshifting.

But hey, less lens flare amiright?

It is odd they're so concerned, as it seems parliament was very, very unsafe for children...

The cat definitely does not get more attention than my son. But, my son might want more attention than he feels he's getting.

I tried it tonight, and I think it like the result. My son walloped the cat, and I immediately went to the cat, making sure it was okay. I gave my son a sad and hurt look. I asked him why he would that, and if any of the people he liked would do that. He seemed confused and a little abashed and apologized to the cat without being promoted. If he was looking for attention, it backfired...the cat got more attention and he didn't. It's also easier on me. I don't have to yell, don't have to hear my kid scream, don't have to watch the clock.

We'll see how it goes but I like it so far. Thanks for your help and advice!

We'll I tried it tonight, and I think the result is promising. My son walloped the cat and I immediately rushed to the cat, checking to see if it was okay. Soothing the cat. Asking my son why he did that, if any of the people he liked would do that. It kind of spooked him and he started apologizing to the cat. This could work. If he was looking for attention before, it's sure going to backfire. Hitting the cat gets attention for the cat, not for him.

It's also way easier on me. I don't have to yell, I don't have to hear my son cry during time out, I don't have to watch the clock. We'll see, but this feels more constructive. The cost of hurting the cat is emotional, not physical. That's the real lesson I want him to learn.

Thanks for your advice!

One of the other responders to my post had a good idea I'm going to try. I'm going to try emotionally manipulating him to feel guilt for hitting the cat, which is what I really want. And associating the cat's bad feeling with his own guilty feeling. Empathy, to make him not want to hit the cat, rather than simply learning there's a rule to not hit cats because I say so. So if he hits the cat, I'm going to check out the cat, comfort the cat, ask my son why he would do such a thing, "would Curious George ever hit a cat? No, of course not..." Make him apologize to the cat, etc. If it works he might develop what I actually want, which is empathy. Can't hurt..time outs haven't worked yet and I don't think they're going to start magically working now...

Thanks for your helpful replies. One of the other responders to my post suggested emotionally manipulating the child, and I think I'm going to try that. Time outs haven't worked. The problem, as the poster you're responding to said, is my son doesn't yet understand the reason we don't hit cats. He hasn't yet developed the empathy that I need him to actually feel. So what I'm going to try doing is instead of yelling at my kid, I'll try comforting the cat, checking to see that he's all right, asking my son "Why would you do that? Have you ever seen Curious George hit a cat? George would never hit a cat," etc. Perhaps I can guilt him into not hitting the cat. When you hit the cat, you don't get "punished," you get made to feel guilty, so perhaps the sympathy seen for the cat will make my son realize the cat's been hurt, feel bad, and associate his bad feeling with the cat's bad feeling. That's empathy, which is the real goal, to make him not want to hit the cat, rather than just learning there's a rule about not hitting cats (because I say so) that results in punishment.

We'll see how it goes...can't hurt. Time outs haven't worked yet and it's not like they're going to magically start now...