Mods would have a better idea if an LC thread would work but I always enjoyed the LC threads in the old P forum for current events and ****.


Berkeley passes major police reforms: No more minor traffic stops


https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/02/...police-reform/

[


Right on, no more vehicle registration in Berkeley.

Nice!

Hey, might be a surprise to you, but it's possible to enforce state and even federal laws without traffic stops. We even do it today for some things!

Friday levity.




I feel confident I would have a 'chance' winning a fight against everything up to and including the Kangaroo, if you remove the chimpanzee and put it above.

Who the hell thinks they would beat anything above the Kangaroo? People said yes to beating the elephant but no to the Lion? WTF??

And am i fighting the crocodile on land or in the water??

You'd have no chance against a kangaroo. As soon as the kangaroo took the fight seriously you'd be disemboweled.

OK I meant a normal kangaroo and not a kangaroo born of the Chernobyl fight club.

I wasn't even sure this was real but apparently this is Roger, who died a few years ago at the age of 12 and gained internet fandom due to his impressiveness. He was 6'7 and weighed 200 pounds.
But yeah-- one kick from even some smaller kangaroos of different species [Roger was a red kangaroo which are the largest]-- I'm sure could be quite bad.

Kangaroo's tend to use wrestling and bjj before resorting to their most deadly weapon, a full strength kick.

They love the clinch, the grab and pull the head down and then they apply a blood choke until their opposition is clearly unconscious and even then they tend to hold it quite a bit longer. I think it would be almost certain that a human who did not break that choke would be choked until we die as it takes little time after the loss of consciousness, if the opponent does not let go before we suffer brain death and die.

.

I'd be interested in seeing how this works out. Because the most black people I've ever seen in one area not the coast of Colombia, has been in Mississippi, where you can go to Wal-Mart and basically ~everyone is black-- who will vote to vote D. I'm guessing the gerrymandering has to do with some of the black population being concentrated in certain parts of the state? I'm trying to think we're I've been but Jackson and Vicksburg.. it seems like 15% would trigger a court review.

We have seen districts drawn much worse than this explanation of Gerrymandering explains.




Basically you draw the first district to suck up and contain most of the 'Black' vote, no matter how convoluted the lines must be. Thus you give them one overwhelmingly dominant win (but one win is one win as dominance does not matter) and that then leaves the rest of districts to be won by the GOP vote.

Geese are mean no chance without a weapon

It's a bit of everything. In gerrymandering there are two moves you can do, cracking and packing.

Cracking is diluting a group you know is going to vote one way into different districts so their voting power is diluted until the other party has a majority

Packing is taking a group that might have been the majority in multiple units and packing them all into one.

What's become more useful is that now there is fine grained information where people live, their demographics, and how that demographics would vote. Having that fine grained information you can start drawing districts very preciously to get the result you want.

There's also a law that says its unconstitutional to deny minorities representation so some minorities have to be packed into a district so that they can be majority, which hurts Democrats because Republicans can pack minorities into a district and claim to do so in compliance with the law.

With all of that people have tried to bring gerrymandering courts to trial, and the majority conservative court has thrown out gerrymandering cases and in fact when one step forward and said courts shouldn't even be hearing cases about gerrymandering except when they run afoul of the narrow rules set in the Civil Rights Act. Basically the conservatives ruled it doesn't matter how much popular vote is needed for one party to overcome the legislative gerrymander because that's a case for the state courts, which are also gerrymandered.

So as of right now the courts have effectively blessed one party rule in the states if a party in the state wants to do it and can do it.

Geese are aggressive and humans rarely fight back in a life or death fashion.

Certainly a goose wing can smash a nose and perhaps fracture a skull if they land just right.

But if a full size, fit male human knows this a win or die fight, he will beat the goose, 9 of 10 times or more. He will eventually grab that neck and wring it just like they kill chickens.

31% of males beating Large dogs in a known death match seems reasonable to me. Frail, small, or men who do not deal with pain or damage well will be torn apart by a big aggressive dog, while they focus on retreating from damage instead of attacking and inflicting damage themselves.

To engage a big dog where retreat is not an option and you have to accept the damage that will come to then inflict your own damage. The dog will invariable clamp on your arm or other body part, and the normal reaction is for the human to pull back due to damage and pain. that just increases the tearing and sheer force of the dog. It is how they create maximum damage you give none back. Instead you have to push into it and close the small distance you have and attack the dogs eyes or (not to be gross) we humans could literally bite off a significant amount of his snout.

Dogs have much stronger bite force but outside mistake will grab major bone areas (forearm, leg) whereas humans can be more strategic and bit areas we remove leaving deep serious wounds with each and every bite.

Wait is this way too serious and gruesome an answer for Monday morning ???

I like how the headline implies people wouldn't take on a large goose.

I'm a birder so I've been around geese a decent amount in situations where they are on land. Always Canada geese. They'll aggressively defend their young but if they don't perceive you as a threat then they won't bother you and you can definitely get pretty close to them.
If you're too close for their comfort, then they might take a couple steps in your direction to let you know to back off-- but they aren't really something to worry about. You respect them and they'll respect you.

Most Canadians have grown up in direct proximity to Canada geese and seeing their populations explode to the point they foul most parks and open areas.

On my evening bike rides or walks you often have to navigate around streams of geese who cross against the traffic with no f*cks given. With young they are more aggressive but you always typically get a long period of hissing and posturing before an attack.

The problem is where a few decades back we still had lots of geese but also lots of unfouled grass areas and park now almost every inch in many regions is inhabited and fouled.

Culling still quietly goes on (as it should for both geese and the other problem animal deer's) but it has to be kept quiet as well meaning but very naïve activists get enraged at any 'man' inspired animal deaths while ignore the very real damage to the population that over population can create including changing very important habitats for other animals, that then die.

Deer and geese culls should be embraced with the meat going to food banks as a healthier alternative to store bought, factory farmed meat. But crazy activists lose their sh*t when that is suggested.

In the US their permanent, year round population has expanded greatly as well. Canada Geese can be both migratory and permanent residents, and the explosion of golf courses and suburban grassy areas/man made lakes and the like has given them a fine habitat to stay here on a year round basis.

I'm not an activist but have been called crazy a few times. There is certainly something creepy about feeding culled animal meat to desperate poor people

This was a good and interesting post btw. Not much or anything to say in response to it other than that it was informative and appreciated.

My First Helping of Canada Goose

When I told people I was planning to eat a Canada Goose, they looked at me as if I'd said I was roasting a rat for dinner. The wild Branta canadensis is ranked down there with the pigeon and the seagull as one of North America's most loathed birds. And for good enough reason. A flock of geese flying in formation might look beautiful from a distance, but these birds cause problems, crowding parks and public space and polluting waterfronts with their waste. Many farmers hate them too. A group of hungry geese searching for seed can trample a newly-planted field in mere minutes, wasting the crop. Their reputation both city-side and in the country is so bad that, when, over the years, officials have suggested culling the flocks and then offering the meat at homeless shelters, the response often has been outrage at the idea of forcing on the poor the indignity of eating a Canada Goose.

They say it's not bad.

I'm sure sure taste great. Just a creepy vibe abt feeding the culled to the homeless. I'm not even saying it's wrong or not a solution

Just the other day I saw 2 geese bully a whole flock of seagulls out of a parking lot. So no doubt they got a mean streak in em

It would just be wasteful hassle. Suddenly you would need specific ammunition types (aka. avoid lead, since you seem to want to serve a lot of this stuff), handle and prepare tons of game birds in manner that is safe for later consumption (cleanliness, temps), check the carcasses for diseases, have cooling trucks and storages in ready supply, including transport routes (which would limit where you can cull).

It would just be an inefficient logistical nightmare, and you would be much, much better of spending the money on traditional food programs.