If you put those vets with PTSD (or, really, anyone with PTSD) into an oppressive work environment, yeah, some might pop off. I can't speak in regards to the work environment in your typical precinct. I hear that one has a margarita machine.
While we've seen some studies about military forces in other parts of the world being used for police operations, and ending with less-than-optimal results, I can't speak to the correlation between the hiring of vets and, say, the police brutality problem in the US. More likely, that's just because cop is a great career path for bullies with anger-management problems, and human beings love authority so much that we find it hard to sustain oversight.
Am I saying vets with PTSD are unemployable? Of course not. But most of the PTSD victims I know (some action-hardened vets, some not) are really into not taking any shit from anyone, including bosses.
And we have a lot of folks who are denied rights and services for less. It's the Hustler / raunchy porn free speech rule: when we protect outrageous or offensive speech, it demonstrates that less offensive speech is protected.
When we protect the rights of those of us who are most despicable and offensive, it means that the rights of us who are less so are also protected.
Now I want to see Nestle nastygram Red Bull GmbH...
...since Red Bull tastes conspicuously like Shock Tarts* which is a product of Nestle Corporation.
...No I don't. This kind of trademark defensiveness is really dickish and insecure. Good thing I don't like Red Bull, or taurine-based energy drinks generally, because now I find Red Bull as a company, a product and a concept even more annoying.
...our version of a democratic system to elect people who govern with integrity and wisdom does not work, given that our only choices, our only options are reduced to people who lie to cover their own asses and believe the law does not apply to themselves.
We'd be better off with a Social Security number lottery.
No-one cares at this point since no-one uses the metro, but yeah, in order for your App to be Win8 compatible, it has to past Microsoft Windows Certification, which precludes anything Microsoft has decided might squick an eleven-year-old.
At first, even M-rated games were outlawed outright, but the cert guidelines were loosened to allow M-rated games that didn't have sexual content. And then it became a non-issue when all the desktop users disabled the Metro and bought third-party start menus.
But yeah, the big companies all want their own walled gardens where they can decide which porn is acceptable and which isn't, and which news that disparages their company is fit to print, and which is not.
As someone who follows some children's welfare interests
I've noticed that that our society in general, and police specifically, are interested in busting people they can label as pedophiles or pornographers, but these institutions have statistically little interest in curbing child sexual abuse, tracing and intercepting child trafficking or prostitution rackets.
Our law enforcement and department of justice wants to imprison you for looking at a picture of a naked child, and maybe intercept the distribution of pictures, but couldn't care less about the welfare of the child in question, or about halting production of further pictures. Or halting vectors by which children are captured and indoctrinated into the black-market sex industries.
Incidentally, child sex slaves average a service life-span of seven years. That's around seven years after they are captured and broken in. Most, by far, die as slaves, and their masters are rarely discovered or face justice.
Whether it's our representatives or our agency managers or even the pro-dystopia schlub on the street, and whether we're talking about torture, or mass surveillance or mandated backdoors or the ability to convict and imprison a fellow just because we wanna (by selectively invoking laws of which almost everyone is guilty)...
...they keep on saying it's perfectly legal not addressing points of whether or not it's ethical or technically problematic or is prone to have severe consequences or violates the rights of ordinary citizens.
Why do they think that legality trumps all these other issues, or makes them irrelevant?
And while we're here, even Jon Stewart pointed out, regarding legality maybe they shouldn't be. We've an entire history of dubious legalities. Why can they not see this? Is it intellectual dishonesty, or moral incompetence?
What you consider right and good is offensive to others.
I guess it's affirming to your own limited view when someone else pushes to ban what you find offensive. It's when they want to ban stuff in which you do want to partake -- and they will -- that you might find it distressing.
Since you've already defined yourself as uncaring about the interests and well being of others, why should we have any interest in upholding or defending your rights? Reciprocity, much?
When we don't protect the right of the lowest and most despicable of us, when we decide a given people, a given culture, a given hobby among our own doesn't count, then we've opened the door to exclude the rights of others, until only a few -- or only one -- decides what is acceptable or unacceptable.
Personally, I like a defense against a Canadian invasion, or a Chinese invasion.
I like having clean water and clean meat, and a cause for someone to think twice before killing me and taking my home.
I like protection from fires, and response to hurricanes, and protection from joblessness and financial hardship.
Or consistent communications encryption standards that aren't dependent on trusting Microsoft or Google or Apple, or that some expert is willing to volunteer his time to making it. I like that too. And I'm really pissed off that the NSA sabotaged that, due to funtion creep and conflicting interests.
Government can serve some good uses. But it's also susceptible to certain ailments, and a drift toward a feudal dictatorship.
I say we should have some ideas as to what we want to implement in the next iteration before we tear this one down.