To begin with, a lot of those entering the US from Mexico and other central American countries were poor, unskilled workers who benefited from the socialist nature of American "capitalism" (things such as the minimum wage, free medical care at any hospital, etc.) which naturally would appeal to them. Or people where the lack of free markets in the US create a benefit for them (for example, doctors and hospitals are very competitive in South America, they act more like monopolies in the US). There are a whole lot of people who would rather have comfort than freedom, when given the choice between a completely free life with no government handouts and a life filled with rules, regulations and restrictions with government handouts a lot of them are going to pick the latter option.
I can see the US having "entrepreneur drain" as young people quickly realize that there is an entire world out there to explore and many places where it is easier and more profitable (not just in dollars but in quality of life) to run a business outside of the USA. Just look at Eduardo Saverin who left the US for greener pastures in Asia.
Yep, you might also want to check out Chile too. Both are very modern and generally well prepared for disasters, economic, natural or man-made. Economic collapses are nothing new in Argentina and so the people largely have a culture based around that and so they are better prepared if/when another one hits.
So what do you propose to do Mr. AC? What's really funny is we look at the people who escaped tyranny abroad to come to the US with nothing but a dream and the shirt on their back to have more opportunities as heroes, but yet a few generations later when the tyranny is domestic suddenly its cowardly?
Tell me, how are you going to fight injustice? Lets just start with one piece of injustice, the US PATRIOT act, tell me, how do you, as a single person, expect to get that to be repealed? Its not like everyone loves the act or that it is so obscure no one knows what it is. So tell me, how are you going to get that repealed? What candidate is running on a platform of repealing the PATRIOT act? Certainly none of the major ones. Sure, you can vote for Ron Paul and Gary Johnson or another third party candidate, but how will that turn out better than 2008 did?
If you want to fight injustice (without violence) the only way is to leave, deprive the government of your income, your talents. It isn't cowardly, its heroic. Its not running away from hard times, its running towards a better future.
Sure, its a problem with bad laws. Now, do you expect me to have respect for someone who knows there are bad laws out there and yet tries to uphold them? This isn't a 1950s TV show, anyone who joins any sort of police force knows exactly what corrupt laws are in place and undoubtedly knows the corruption rampant in "law enforcement" and yet they still choose that as their career path. Why would I have respect for someone who does that? Why would I have respect for an organization who as a whole ignores real crime (try reporting something stolen the police, they nod, write stuff down and promise to "call if something turns up") and goes after non-crime (such as drug use, the same officers who were so apathetic to help fight real crime suddenly can get encouraged to break down a door to stop someone from committing a victimless "crime") instead.
I have absolutely no respect for any amoral thug who happens to be wearing gang colors and a gang sign, no matter if those colors may be blue and the gang sign is a brass shield.
A lot of the island nations in the Caribbean are generally (mostly) laid back and have less of a police presence, I've heard people having good luck with Argentina and oddly enough Mexico, haven't been outside of the tourist-y areas there enough to tell you exactly how they are. If you can, I'd talk to people who have moved/lived in those countries if possible because it tells you a good deal more than the official crime statistics (for example, was the person killed in a random drive by killing or cheated with a guy's wife? Were they killed in the "bad part" of town or not? Etc.). If you want to explore the option further, you might want to try reading some of this blog: http://www.dollarvigilante.com/blog/ , while I certainly don't agree with all of it, its interesting to read nonetheless. There are a few benefits to relocating to a more free country, and while I haven't taken the plunge quite yet its certainly eye opening to see what many are missing.
Medical care is cheap and top notch, hospital rooms feel more like a room at a luxury hotel than a prison. Your dollar goes further, a very nice meal that might cost $75+ in the states costs perhaps $20. Property taxes are cheap to non-existent and labor is quite cheap.
But you've got to do your research to find something that fits what you want. But the nice thing about the internet is, finding people who live in X foreign country is a lot easier than it was 20 or 30 years ago.
Do I wish to deny the use of technology to amoral thugs who routinely abuse their power? Absolutely! Giving more power to the police has never worked out well, not for the US, not for any other country. Given their abysmal track record for protecting civil liberties why would I want to give them another tool to oppress people? Given their lax attitude towards real crime (ever report something stolen to the police?) and their attitude towards victimless "crimes" (they'll knock down doors and come in with riot gear to attack a suspected "drug dealer") why would I want to assist them? In most other countries the people act as a deterrent to police power. In the US you see this: http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/files/2011/11/original.jpeg in the rest of the world if a cop does that, you see this: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/07/05/world/sub-ukraine/sub-ukraine-articleLarge.jpg (both SFW images).
And to top it all off, their only checks end up being... other cops. No accountability to the people at all.
The system is based on an ideal America which was shattered following the civil war. The idea is that most laws affecting you and me would be passed in local and state elections where there is more impact and more ability for the common man to influence change, along with more ability to vote with your feet. The federal government would be in charge of doing "big picture things" such as tariff rates, wars and foreign affairs. Their impact on the individual would be normally very low. There was competition built in, the states would choose the senate and the masses the house, meaning that laws that threatened state sovereignty would more than likely be blocked by the senate. When it came to the laws people wanted, it could easily be decided by a state by state basis where one industry or product dominated their economy. Also, political parties were minor.
Today we don't have that, senators are directly elected by the masses, the federal government affects people a lot more than the state government does, no state has a single industry anymore, sure, there are a lot of farms in Kansas but there are also huge technology firms (Garmin and Sprint for example).
There are several improvements that the US could do, such as proportional representation by party (like what much of Europe does) to let everyone's voice be heard, especially since a lot of ideas aren't geographically based. And while I'm not sure what the political benefits would be, I would like to see something like Prime Minister's questions done with the US.
Although, I have to say this is more true for the Americas and Europe than the rest of the world. A good chunk of the police in what the west are fond of calling the "third world" actually have morals and want to help people.
Says someone who has most likely never actually looked outside of the US or Europe. There are plenty of places that are quite safe despite having very little or no police presence. You look at the biggest causes of violence in the world and the answer is simple: the state. Look at the drug cartels, do you really think that drug cartels would exist if the drugs they were selling were legal? Of course not. Nearly all organized crime exists because of the state prohibiting the sale of goods where there is an inelastic demand.
It is perfectly possible to have harmony and peace without having a police state.
Right, and we also should do ID checks every 3 blocks, after all, it would allow to search for:
Missing persons, wanted criminals, "illegal" immigrants, kidnapping victims, terrorists, etc.
Just because there are possible legitimate uses for the police to deploy such technologies doesn't mean the benefits outweigh the clear privacy violations. Do you also really believe that all the PATRIOT act does is protect us from terrorists?
Except for the fact that the masses aren't sick of this crap though. And they system makes it impossible for any third-party candidate to win.
Ask the average Joe why they are voting for Romney/Obama chances are it is because Obama is worse than Romney or vice versa. No one really -likes- Obama, no one really -likes- Romney. About the only politicians that people actually like are the "long shot" candidates like Ron Paul, Gary Johnson and Jill Stein. Naturally, they have no shot in winning because A) The US election system is based on having a medium sized state government and a tiny federal government, a far cry from the large state governments and colossal federal government we have today B) The American people simply don't care about any real changes they just care about ZOMG ROMNEY DOESN'T SUPPORT GAY MARRAGE! MUST VOTE OBAMA!!!! And ZOMG OBAMA SUPPORTS ABORTION MUST VOTE ROMNEY!!! Rather than any intelligent debate on the real issues.
There is a difference between fraud (lies used to gain a sale) and free speech. Whether this specific instance counts as fraud is questionable (every business is going to say their product is the "best" and every consumer knows, or should know that).
Cheaper and more accessible. What needs to happen is for there to be a truly global market for games, I always had hoped that digital distribution would help create that, but it hasn't. You need to be able to choose the region you want your game in when you digitally download because the versions aren't identical and it doesn't cost extra to ship. Want the Japanese version of the game on the Japanese release date? Download it! Want the European version with some added features/languages? Download it! Want the American version sold at Wal-Mart on disk? Download it! They also need to release back-libraries quickly. Had the Nintendo Wii (and 3DS) shipped with every first party NES/SNES/N64 game on the Virtual Console it would have been awesome for retro-gamers (again also, let us download games for other regions so there's a legal way to play the obscure SNES RPGs released only in Japan) but instead they release 1 or 2 games a week thus negating a lot of the possible benefits.
Ok, lets start with basic demographic information of where people of Japanese decent are. Now, as a company if you get this information chances are you are going to put billboards up featuring Asian people, perhaps open up an Asian grocery store, maybe a sushi joint. But if you were the US (and Canadian) governments you take all those of Japanese decent and round them up and put them in concentration camps. Same information, very different results.
Generally, a corporation having access with data means they'd be able to better market and serve you. I really fail to see what is creepy about companies being able to better to serve me. For example, I'd much rather see an ad for, say, a sale on the newest graphics card than p3n15 p1llz or just generic ads (granted, I use adblock so I don't see ads, but still). Not that I really see it as any more creepy that individuals can see it too, all I really care about is preventing governments from most of my data as they are the only entity to have habitually exploited and used this data to cause harm.
That's because most other companies are pretty open on when they are going to release stuff. With Apple, its an annoying gamble if you are going to buy from them because if you are unlucky you'll end up with a product that 1 month later is obsolete and a better product is out with the exact same price. While other companies have some of the same risks, they usually decrease the price over the course of the product's life, Apple does not until the "big new thing" is out.
Except for the fact that Microsoft's marketing has been routinely pathetic (anyone remember the Vista commercial with Jerry Seinfeld? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImyK29QLs_A )
On the other hand Apple's marketing has been rather catchy (I'm a Mac, I'm a PC and the MacBook Air commercial)
The biggest problem with Microsoft is that it tries to come up with improvements after the product is already out in the hands of the masses and makes so little improvements that for most its not worth changing. Apple comes up with a product and makes it desirable, it creates a mass market where there only was a niche market before. Apple didn't invent the MP3 player, it invented the market for the MP3 player other than among geeks. Apple didn't invent the smartphone, it made the consumer smartphone market.
Apple is brilliant in creating a market where there wasn't one before. That, is great marketing.
I'm using Firefox and I've tried Chrome but there is zero customization with Chrome. The last time I used Chrome (about 3 months ago) there wasn't even any fine grained history settings (where is the keep cookies but don't keep a history option?) let alone all the settings found in about:config.
Safari really isn't much of an option since I use Linux, and I really just couldn't get used to Opera. Give me a fully customizable version of Chrome and I'd switch in a heartbeat, but I don't want a browser with zero customization like Chrome.
It wouldn't matter. The constitution is routinely ignored, there are so many laws on the books that its impossible to be sure that you are following them all.
Even if they did follow the constitution they'd use political doublespeak to prevent it from working as intended.
"Cybersecurity" 101, don't have critical infrastructure facing the internet. Use strong encryption for sensitive files. Deploy security patches promptly. Use the right tool for the job, sometimes that means using a commercial OS, sometimes it means developing a new OS, sometimes it means taking an existing OS (*Nix) and tweaking it.
The new CFL bulbs have terrible lighting (so do LEDs), I'd much rather have incandescent lightbulbs. For me actually having nice light is worth paying a few extra pennies in my electricity bill. But you soon won't be able to even have the choice to choose between the two.
And when it comes down to cars, unless you go cross country frequently it makes zero economic sense to trade in your car thats already paid for that gets 10 MPG to spend $25,000 on a new car that gets 25 MPG.
The problems with "saving energy" is that it reduces your standard of living for next to no benefits.
If we are going to truly have an increase in your standard of living we need more power plants and better technology. The "green" movement wants us to take away centuries of progress and live worse just because they think it's "better".
Blindly following the law is much worse than opposing it.
If you name the worst crimes, the worst tragedies to occur in human history, the Killing Fields, the genocide in Rwanda, the holocaust, etc. were all committed by people simply "following the law", soldiers just "following orders". If you name the biggest heroes in the world, chances are they were breaking the law.
But, its your life, you have to live with your own decisions. I for one will do what is moral, even if its not legal. I'm not going to break the law simply to, but I'm not going to blindly follow some law just because its the "law". When the current events today have become the textbooks of tomorrow and my children or grandchildren look at the tyranny that exists and asked if I opposed it, I can look at them in the eye and give an honest answer and not be ashamed.
Slashdot Mirror
Says someone completely ignorant of the facts. Just look at this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/for-first-time-since-depression-more-mexicans-leave-us-than-enter/2012/04/23/gIQApyiDdT_story.html for example.
To begin with, a lot of those entering the US from Mexico and other central American countries were poor, unskilled workers who benefited from the socialist nature of American "capitalism" (things such as the minimum wage, free medical care at any hospital, etc.) which naturally would appeal to them. Or people where the lack of free markets in the US create a benefit for them (for example, doctors and hospitals are very competitive in South America, they act more like monopolies in the US). There are a whole lot of people who would rather have comfort than freedom, when given the choice between a completely free life with no government handouts and a life filled with rules, regulations and restrictions with government handouts a lot of them are going to pick the latter option.
I can see the US having "entrepreneur drain" as young people quickly realize that there is an entire world out there to explore and many places where it is easier and more profitable (not just in dollars but in quality of life) to run a business outside of the USA. Just look at Eduardo Saverin who left the US for greener pastures in Asia.
And to think most in the US view South America as some backwards "third world" with no freedom and the US is the freest country in the world.
Interesting how quickly things change.
Yep, you might also want to check out Chile too. Both are very modern and generally well prepared for disasters, economic, natural or man-made. Economic collapses are nothing new in Argentina and so the people largely have a culture based around that and so they are better prepared if/when another one hits.
So what do you propose to do Mr. AC? What's really funny is we look at the people who escaped tyranny abroad to come to the US with nothing but a dream and the shirt on their back to have more opportunities as heroes, but yet a few generations later when the tyranny is domestic suddenly its cowardly?
Tell me, how are you going to fight injustice? Lets just start with one piece of injustice, the US PATRIOT act, tell me, how do you, as a single person, expect to get that to be repealed? Its not like everyone loves the act or that it is so obscure no one knows what it is. So tell me, how are you going to get that repealed? What candidate is running on a platform of repealing the PATRIOT act? Certainly none of the major ones. Sure, you can vote for Ron Paul and Gary Johnson or another third party candidate, but how will that turn out better than 2008 did?
If you want to fight injustice (without violence) the only way is to leave, deprive the government of your income, your talents. It isn't cowardly, its heroic. Its not running away from hard times, its running towards a better future.
Sure, its a problem with bad laws. Now, do you expect me to have respect for someone who knows there are bad laws out there and yet tries to uphold them? This isn't a 1950s TV show, anyone who joins any sort of police force knows exactly what corrupt laws are in place and undoubtedly knows the corruption rampant in "law enforcement" and yet they still choose that as their career path. Why would I have respect for someone who does that? Why would I have respect for an organization who as a whole ignores real crime (try reporting something stolen the police, they nod, write stuff down and promise to "call if something turns up") and goes after non-crime (such as drug use, the same officers who were so apathetic to help fight real crime suddenly can get encouraged to break down a door to stop someone from committing a victimless "crime") instead.
I have absolutely no respect for any amoral thug who happens to be wearing gang colors and a gang sign, no matter if those colors may be blue and the gang sign is a brass shield.
A lot of the island nations in the Caribbean are generally (mostly) laid back and have less of a police presence, I've heard people having good luck with Argentina and oddly enough Mexico, haven't been outside of the tourist-y areas there enough to tell you exactly how they are. If you can, I'd talk to people who have moved/lived in those countries if possible because it tells you a good deal more than the official crime statistics (for example, was the person killed in a random drive by killing or cheated with a guy's wife? Were they killed in the "bad part" of town or not? Etc.). If you want to explore the option further, you might want to try reading some of this blog: http://www.dollarvigilante.com/blog/ , while I certainly don't agree with all of it, its interesting to read nonetheless. There are a few benefits to relocating to a more free country, and while I haven't taken the plunge quite yet its certainly eye opening to see what many are missing.
Medical care is cheap and top notch, hospital rooms feel more like a room at a luxury hotel than a prison. Your dollar goes further, a very nice meal that might cost $75+ in the states costs perhaps $20. Property taxes are cheap to non-existent and labor is quite cheap.
But you've got to do your research to find something that fits what you want. But the nice thing about the internet is, finding people who live in X foreign country is a lot easier than it was 20 or 30 years ago.
Do I wish to deny the use of technology to amoral thugs who routinely abuse their power? Absolutely! Giving more power to the police has never worked out well, not for the US, not for any other country. Given their abysmal track record for protecting civil liberties why would I want to give them another tool to oppress people? Given their lax attitude towards real crime (ever report something stolen to the police?) and their attitude towards victimless "crimes" (they'll knock down doors and come in with riot gear to attack a suspected "drug dealer") why would I want to assist them? In most other countries the people act as a deterrent to police power. In the US you see this: http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/files/2011/11/original.jpeg in the rest of the world if a cop does that, you see this: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/07/05/world/sub-ukraine/sub-ukraine-articleLarge.jpg (both SFW images).
And to top it all off, their only checks end up being... other cops. No accountability to the people at all.
The system is based on an ideal America which was shattered following the civil war. The idea is that most laws affecting you and me would be passed in local and state elections where there is more impact and more ability for the common man to influence change, along with more ability to vote with your feet. The federal government would be in charge of doing "big picture things" such as tariff rates, wars and foreign affairs. Their impact on the individual would be normally very low. There was competition built in, the states would choose the senate and the masses the house, meaning that laws that threatened state sovereignty would more than likely be blocked by the senate. When it came to the laws people wanted, it could easily be decided by a state by state basis where one industry or product dominated their economy. Also, political parties were minor.
Today we don't have that, senators are directly elected by the masses, the federal government affects people a lot more than the state government does, no state has a single industry anymore, sure, there are a lot of farms in Kansas but there are also huge technology firms (Garmin and Sprint for example).
There are several improvements that the US could do, such as proportional representation by party (like what much of Europe does) to let everyone's voice be heard, especially since a lot of ideas aren't geographically based. And while I'm not sure what the political benefits would be, I would like to see something like Prime Minister's questions done with the US.
Exactly.
Although, I have to say this is more true for the Americas and Europe than the rest of the world. A good chunk of the police in what the west are fond of calling the "third world" actually have morals and want to help people.
Says someone who has most likely never actually looked outside of the US or Europe. There are plenty of places that are quite safe despite having very little or no police presence. You look at the biggest causes of violence in the world and the answer is simple: the state. Look at the drug cartels, do you really think that drug cartels would exist if the drugs they were selling were legal? Of course not. Nearly all organized crime exists because of the state prohibiting the sale of goods where there is an inelastic demand.
It is perfectly possible to have harmony and peace without having a police state.
Right, and we also should do ID checks every 3 blocks, after all, it would allow to search for:
Missing persons, wanted criminals, "illegal" immigrants, kidnapping victims, terrorists, etc.
Just because there are possible legitimate uses for the police to deploy such technologies doesn't mean the benefits outweigh the clear privacy violations. Do you also really believe that all the PATRIOT act does is protect us from terrorists?
Except for the fact that the masses aren't sick of this crap though. And they system makes it impossible for any third-party candidate to win.
Ask the average Joe why they are voting for Romney/Obama chances are it is because Obama is worse than Romney or vice versa. No one really -likes- Obama, no one really -likes- Romney. About the only politicians that people actually like are the "long shot" candidates like Ron Paul, Gary Johnson and Jill Stein. Naturally, they have no shot in winning because A) The US election system is based on having a medium sized state government and a tiny federal government, a far cry from the large state governments and colossal federal government we have today B) The American people simply don't care about any real changes they just care about ZOMG ROMNEY DOESN'T SUPPORT GAY MARRAGE! MUST VOTE OBAMA!!!! And ZOMG OBAMA SUPPORTS ABORTION MUST VOTE ROMNEY!!! Rather than any intelligent debate on the real issues.
There is a difference between fraud (lies used to gain a sale) and free speech. Whether this specific instance counts as fraud is questionable (every business is going to say their product is the "best" and every consumer knows, or should know that).
Cheaper and more accessible. What needs to happen is for there to be a truly global market for games, I always had hoped that digital distribution would help create that, but it hasn't. You need to be able to choose the region you want your game in when you digitally download because the versions aren't identical and it doesn't cost extra to ship. Want the Japanese version of the game on the Japanese release date? Download it! Want the European version with some added features/languages? Download it! Want the American version sold at Wal-Mart on disk? Download it! They also need to release back-libraries quickly. Had the Nintendo Wii (and 3DS) shipped with every first party NES/SNES/N64 game on the Virtual Console it would have been awesome for retro-gamers (again also, let us download games for other regions so there's a legal way to play the obscure SNES RPGs released only in Japan) but instead they release 1 or 2 games a week thus negating a lot of the possible benefits.
Ok, lets start with basic demographic information of where people of Japanese decent are. Now, as a company if you get this information chances are you are going to put billboards up featuring Asian people, perhaps open up an Asian grocery store, maybe a sushi joint. But if you were the US (and Canadian) governments you take all those of Japanese decent and round them up and put them in concentration camps. Same information, very different results.
Generally, a corporation having access with data means they'd be able to better market and serve you. I really fail to see what is creepy about companies being able to better to serve me. For example, I'd much rather see an ad for, say, a sale on the newest graphics card than p3n15 p1llz or just generic ads (granted, I use adblock so I don't see ads, but still). Not that I really see it as any more creepy that individuals can see it too, all I really care about is preventing governments from most of my data as they are the only entity to have habitually exploited and used this data to cause harm.
Such are the flaws of collectivism.
What I find is interesting is that this is Obama's official campaign app and not some third-party "lets see what we can do with data" app.
That's because most other companies are pretty open on when they are going to release stuff. With Apple, its an annoying gamble if you are going to buy from them because if you are unlucky you'll end up with a product that 1 month later is obsolete and a better product is out with the exact same price. While other companies have some of the same risks, they usually decrease the price over the course of the product's life, Apple does not until the "big new thing" is out.
Except for the fact that Microsoft's marketing has been routinely pathetic (anyone remember the Vista commercial with Jerry Seinfeld? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImyK29QLs_A )
On the other hand Apple's marketing has been rather catchy (I'm a Mac, I'm a PC and the MacBook Air commercial)
The biggest problem with Microsoft is that it tries to come up with improvements after the product is already out in the hands of the masses and makes so little improvements that for most its not worth changing. Apple comes up with a product and makes it desirable, it creates a mass market where there only was a niche market before. Apple didn't invent the MP3 player, it invented the market for the MP3 player other than among geeks. Apple didn't invent the smartphone, it made the consumer smartphone market.
Apple is brilliant in creating a market where there wasn't one before. That, is great marketing.
I'm using Firefox and I've tried Chrome but there is zero customization with Chrome. The last time I used Chrome (about 3 months ago) there wasn't even any fine grained history settings (where is the keep cookies but don't keep a history option?) let alone all the settings found in about:config.
Safari really isn't much of an option since I use Linux, and I really just couldn't get used to Opera. Give me a fully customizable version of Chrome and I'd switch in a heartbeat, but I don't want a browser with zero customization like Chrome.
It wouldn't matter. The constitution is routinely ignored, there are so many laws on the books that its impossible to be sure that you are following them all.
Even if they did follow the constitution they'd use political doublespeak to prevent it from working as intended.
"Cybersecurity" 101, don't have critical infrastructure facing the internet. Use strong encryption for sensitive files. Deploy security patches promptly. Use the right tool for the job, sometimes that means using a commercial OS, sometimes it means developing a new OS, sometimes it means taking an existing OS (*Nix) and tweaking it.
The new CFL bulbs have terrible lighting (so do LEDs), I'd much rather have incandescent lightbulbs. For me actually having nice light is worth paying a few extra pennies in my electricity bill. But you soon won't be able to even have the choice to choose between the two.
And when it comes down to cars, unless you go cross country frequently it makes zero economic sense to trade in your car thats already paid for that gets 10 MPG to spend $25,000 on a new car that gets 25 MPG.
The problems with "saving energy" is that it reduces your standard of living for next to no benefits.
If we are going to truly have an increase in your standard of living we need more power plants and better technology. The "green" movement wants us to take away centuries of progress and live worse just because they think it's "better".
Blindly following the law is much worse than opposing it.
If you name the worst crimes, the worst tragedies to occur in human history, the Killing Fields, the genocide in Rwanda, the holocaust, etc. were all committed by people simply "following the law", soldiers just "following orders". If you name the biggest heroes in the world, chances are they were breaking the law.
But, its your life, you have to live with your own decisions. I for one will do what is moral, even if its not legal. I'm not going to break the law simply to, but I'm not going to blindly follow some law just because its the "law". When the current events today have become the textbooks of tomorrow and my children or grandchildren look at the tyranny that exists and asked if I opposed it, I can look at them in the eye and give an honest answer and not be ashamed.