Ragitsu

Then it's a very good thing that I didn't say that, isn't it?
 
Go read up on the use of force continuum.
 
What I'm talking about is lazy/cowardly police skipping over lower levels of force.
 
What I'm talking about is when a TASER or a BULLET is excessive force.
 
I remember one case of a 13 year old girl who was seriously harmed because she took a taser prong to the skull. I'm pretty sure that either simply letting her run away or using soft hands would have been more appropriate. The charge in that case was something very minor, like truancy.
 
Or how about the shooting of the guy with the rock in Spokane Pasco? Was that showing any level of control? Were the officers not versed enough in team tactics to take the guy to the ground and cuff him without shooting him in the back as he fled? I will guarantee you that any MP unit I was in would have had the guy on the ground without too much trouble and carted off for the mental health help he needed, with half as many people.
 
My point here is that police these days have created a culture where they escalate beyond reasonable force in the name of "officer safety" without any regard for the public they're being paid to protect. Including criminals. Including suspects and persons of interest. Including bystanders. Including property owners.

Privilege is like a whore; selling itself to the one with the most resources. And like a whore, it has no loyalty.

I like that the Free Press explained the financial repercussions in terms that the common citizen can understand and relate:  how such out-of-control police behavior directly affects them, not just the beating victim.  The person who sits idly back and thinks, "well, it's not my problem, after all, the guy shouldn't have gotten pulled over in the first place" soon realizes that it *is* his problem, to the tune of a couple hundred dollars in extra property taxes.
 
Hopefully the reaction will be to demand more accountability, to curb such behavior.  But I'm not holding my breath.

Re: Make Your Own Motivational Poster
 

 

Time to ask the Swedes if they'd be willing to open a police academy in the US.
 
"You hear a sound that sounds a lot like gunfire, but it could be anything, what do you do?"
 
"I get cover!"
"Good!"
"Then I chase whatever made the noise..."
"It's a car, two people are in there,  but you cannot make out if they are..."
"Afraid for my life I leap on the hood and fire as many rounds as possible through the car window..."
"Why would you leap on a hood if you were afraid for...?"
"Terrified!  I'm feeling threatened. I better empty the whole clip!"
"But after the first shot you should be able to see they were unarmed!"
"It's a trap! keep firing!"
"Okay, you need to stay after school...."
"Communist!"

Or draw your sidearm and pull the trigger until you have defused the living s--t out of the situation?

It may be the police in theory, but it isn't in fact any longer.  Or such is my point. 

For want of a nail, the shoe was lost;
For want of a shoe, the horse was lost;
For want of a horse, the rider was lost;
For want of a rider, the message was lost;
For want of the message, the battle was lost;
For want of a battle, the kingdom was lost,
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.

Don't judge me!

I'm still doubtful that 90% of TV panders to men. I thought that had shifted long ago and that women were considered the biggest spenders and thus the major target for shows and their commercials? 
Maybe I read some bad info on that?

If it sounds that way then either I failed to make my point clear, or you are not really making an effort to grasp it.
 
For all the tv programming that wants a primarily male audience, pandering to men makes sense. For all the tv programming that wants a primarily female audience, pandering to women makes sense. But for any tv show that wants as broad an audience as possible, pandering to either sex too much is foolish as it almost guarantees it will lose a big chunk of that audience.
 
If Supergirl's goal is to appeal primarily to women, then pandering to them makes sense, and alienating most of the potential male audience is of little consequence to its producers and advertisers. But if its goal is to appeal to everyone, then it would be a serious error in strategic judgment to pander to women, since that risks losing a significant portion of the male demographic they ostensibly want to hang on to.
 
It isn't a question of fairness or chauvinism, it is simply a question of what kind of show Supergirl wants to be, or rather, what kind of audience it wants to attract (and maintain). My message to the networks is that they will make more money appealing to everyone than they will appealing to just women, so why not do that? Especially when the source material comes with tremendous potential to appeal to everyone right from the start.

If so then I think they are making a serious strategic error. The same error that movie producers make when they take a movie that could easily appeal to all ages, and turn it into a kid's movie.
 
For instance, the original Star Wars (i.e., A New Hope, prior to the special edition changes) was a movie that appealed to all ages. Every Star Wars movie after Empire progressively lost this quality, and increasingly leaned on elements too juvenile for adults to enjoy or relate to. The equivalent for Supergirl, I think, would be to "target" women and girls, almost to the exclusion of men (who would ordinarily tune into any superhero show you put on the air) rather than making it appeal to viewers of both genders.
 
It seems that only a tiny handful of creators in Hollywood understand that you can make a show that women/girls will enjoy without having to pander to them.

No, but I believe they are influenced by different things.  A federal judge is a lot less likely to be a "good ol' boy" than a local judge.