Bono should stick to music ...., and leave all the political stuff to people who know what they're talking about!
Since we're on the subject of musicians getting political: First it was Bruce Springsteen, then Cindy Lauper, then Bryan Adams, and now Ringo Star who have all cancelled concerts in North Carolina, in protest of a state law decried as being discriminatory against the gay and lesbian community as well as the switch hitters, cross dressers, gender neutral and even the occasional "Metrosexual" floating around!
MEANWHILE: Musicians Gregg Allman and Jimmy Buffet plan to go ahead with their concerts because they don't care what turns the crank of people who attend their gigs!
Does this headline float yer boat, or perhaps enhance the cut of your jib, there bunky?
"Reprimand urged for Toronto cop who ordered mass arrests at G20!" (Yup, hit him with a wet noodle folks!)
Now don't forget that the cops "kettled" or held a thousand protesters against their will for a couple of hours out in the rain, and then arrested hundreds for up to 24 hours without eventually laying any charges at all!
Supt. David (Mark) Fenton's lawyer says the officer was motivated only by a desire to restore public order and a reprimand would suffice! "I mean, ya can't actually fire the poor bastard, can ya?" (You bunch of mean, ugly fascist crown prosecutors!!!!)
Brauti made much of the fact that Fenton took over an operational command in "panic mode" following a spate of unprecedented vandalism by "roving packs of hooligans" that transformed the downtown into a war zone.
Under orders from his superiors to take back the streets, Fenton issued his sweeping arrest orders on the fly in an effort to ensure public safety, and his supervisors did not object, the tribunal heard.
"Fenton was not a lone wolf in dealing with this situation," Brauti told retired justice John Hamilton.
"It was not the failings of one man, but rather the failings of an entire senior command."
The lawyer noted that Fenton's prosecution came at the direction of an independent watchdog, not his superiors -- in particular former chief and current Liberal MP Bill Blair -- who later thanked him for his G20 efforts.
Brauti accused the complainants' lawyers of being over-zealous in their single-minded push of a "professional death sentence" for Fenton by turning mitigating factors, such as his exemplary record, into aggravating factors.
"Supt. Fenton has become the focus of the failings in the G20," Brauti said.
That is not about avoiding responsibility -- Fenton apologized after his guilty finding for his mistakes -- but an indication of the context in which he made difficult, if flawed, decisions, Brauti said.
Well, well, it seems that for all their other failings, Neanderthals had TABLE MANNERS!
Neanderthals, the closest known extinct relatives to humans, probably had to pick annoying bits of food out of their teeth from time to time. Scientists have evidence that these extinct cousins of modern humans may have done so with the help of prehistoric toothpicks.http://www.livescience.com/54407-neanderthals-used-prehistoric-toothpicks.html
Researchers found traces of wood trapped in fossilized plaque stuck to Neanderthal teeth. The bits of bark likely came from toothpicks, said the new study, published in the April issue of the journal Antiquity.
Last summer, a couple of researchers ran a funny experiment about honesty. They went to an Israeli shopping mall and recruited people, one-by-one, into a private booth. Alone inside the booth, each subject rolled a six-sided die. Then they stepped out and reported the number that came up.
There was an incentive to lie. The higher the number, the more money people received. If they rolled a one, they got a bonus of about $2.50. If they rolled a two, they got a bonus of $5, and so on. If they rolled a six, the bonus was about $15. (Everyone also received $5 just for participating.)
Before we reveal the results, think about what you would do in that situation. Someone comes up to you at the mall and offers you free money to roll a die. If you wanted to make a few extra bucks, you could lie about what you rolled. Nobody would know, and nobody would be harmed.
Imagine you went into that booth and rolled a 1. What would you do? Would you be dishonest? Would you say you rolled a six, just to get the largest payout?
|-I would tell the truth. Say I rolled a 1.|
|-I would lie about it. Say I rolled a 6. Why not, right?|
|-I would fudge my answer a little. Say I rolled a 4.|
The researchers, Bradley Ruffle of Ben-Gurion University and Yossef Tobol, of the Jerusalem College of Technology, wanted to know what kinds of people would lie in this situation.
LOWER INTELLIGENCE HIGHER INTELLIGENCE
We see that among the low-scorers, practically nobody reported rolling a 1, 2 or 3. Nearly half reported rolling a six. This is clear evidence of chicanery.
People with high intelligence scores were a lot more honest. But some of them were also guilty of fudging the numbers. About 28 percent of them said they rolled a four, which is statistically improbable. And only 7 percent of them admitted to rolling a two.
What’s also interesting is how the smart people lied differently. The low-intelligence liars overwhelmingly went big — most of them claimed they rolled a six, which gave them the highest payoff. But the high-intelligence liars were more modest. They were more likely to lie and say they rolled a four or a five.
There are two mysteries here. First, why were the less intelligent people more likely to lie? Second, why were the smarter liars so sheepish about going for the maximum payoff?
Ruffle and Tobol believe that more intelligent people may be more cautious about the consequences of lying. Dishonesty can make a situation better in the short term, but who knows what will happen down the road, especially if the lie eventually comes out?
“[W]hile everyone is aware of the gain from telling a lie in a given situation, higher cognitive-ability types may be more aware or better able to assess the expected costs,” the researchers say in their report.
In this case, for instance, the smarter people might have been more suspicious of the whole setup. They might have guessed that this was a game to test their honesty. They might have wondered if there was a camera watching them in the supposedly private booth (there wasn’t). They might have suspected that there would be some secret punishment for lying.