If he is subsequently found guilty, THEN taking his stuff can be a part of the punishment.
Here here! There shouldn't be ANY forfeiture to government without a finding of guilt (or debt owed). I consider this a blatant end run around the US property rights and I'm terrified the supreme court not only allowed it but has continually allowed it to expand ever outward.
Oh and when did they conclude it was unworkable? When Obama proposed it? You couldn't show a verifiable source that shows dis-ownership of this plan before Obama and the "democrats" proposed it in 2007/2008 if your life depended on it.
The ACA is nearly word for word the Heritage plan. The VERY same plan the Republicans under Gingrich counter proposed to Clinton when Hillary was pushing her healthcare overhaul to congress. And it's the very same plan the GOP and Heritage both endorsed and supported as a "market based reform of the healthcare system" when Romney created Romneycare and right up until Obama was elected when it was suddenly unworkable.
And every time someone like you tries to deny the history there is going to be someone there pointing out that this IS the republican healthcare plan (and also the reason they never proposed a counter to Obamacare). Had Romney proposed it instead of Obama it would be being touted from the hills as the work of the Heritage foundation and a "market based reform" that places "responsibility to pay for healthcare on the people using the system" and endorses "individual responsibility" and all the other buzzword phrases the Heritage foundation used when they created and supported it.
You can still hate Obamacare, even if it was born by Conservatives on the libertarian GOP side funded by the Koch brothers. That doesn't mean you have to like it, unless you are one of those mindless freaks that thinks that just because someone on "your side" created it that you have to like it or you were one of the people that drafted it. But there is no memory hole, you don't get to rewrite history.
Do you expect Obama to pass a law? Congress needs to end it, based on this action it's apparent Obama would sign the bill but without congress this is as far as Holder can go. You know checks and balances and all that.
Thank god for John Oliver bringing this to the attention of millions that didn't know about it. He should get an award for it, and I mean that seriously.
Civil forfeiture allowed small time cops to basically rob people at gun point with no trial and no criminal activity involved. It LONG ago turned into a funding source rather than an avenue to shut down crime. Notice that better than half the post article discusses how this will cut funding to police departments and how it's going to hurt policing even though studies have shown the vast majority of civil forfeiture never involves a criminal trial.
Unfortunately for us the part of the Republican party that supports civil liberties is for the most part dead outside support for the 2nd. Civil forfeiture is a GOP creation, and it's received it's strongest and most vocal support from that same party since it's creation. There are a few of the tea party stripe that care about civil liberties outside the 2nd, but their number is quite small and they are all tea party (and hated by the non tea-party gop).
The saddest part about this was that prior to Regan, the GOP was the primary party that defended civil rights. The democrats are far too likely to pass hate speech laws and to otherwise curtail rights. When the GOP shifted to the law and order party during the Nixon and Regan years they tacitly decided to abandon civil rights (except for the 2nd, and that's only because the 2nd is well defended by a well financed grass roots group).
I totally agree. Lets completely eliminate checks and balances in the system. That way we can have a gerrymandered congress decide everything for us and absolutely no way to check that power to ensure it's not abused.
Or we could trust that checks and balances in this country is one of our strongest features of government. You know like the founders believed. But you probably think they are a bunch of fucking morons.
According to the charging documents he most certainly did. They document a case where he hired a hitman to wipe out a former developer but the job went to the FBI who faked the death and provided "proof". Said person is one of the witnesses against him that he is DPR. You might argue that it's a made up story but the story exists.
There are over 100 Linux distributions. I can guarantee with absolute certainty that not everyone one of them has switched to systemd. You don't like the new car Ford released so you switch to a boat, makes perfect sense.
Regardless about the specifics of the case, it's illegal to actively block someones wifi, for whatever reason. At least in the US the only people that can do that are the military and FCC. The FCC could authorize someone to do it, but by all appearances they will not ever allow that. The FCC is chartered to protect the airwaves and people actively jamming other people (even if it's targeted jamming) are damaging the airwaves.
I point you to the ordinary guy driving around with a cell phone jammer that got hit with a 5 digit fine.
Put in $1200 per year taxable saving. Put in zero's for how much you have (taxable) 28% federal, 6% state, 0 for tax deferred and 0 per year. Then 45 in years to save (20 to 65) and put in an annual growth of 6%.
Results:
Your current savings will grow to: $183,100 Inflation adjusted: $46,496
That is not nothing, you won't be living high on the hog but you will have a reliable nest egg and if you were smart and bought a house and paid it off during those 40 years you will have more than enough to survive even if they decimate social security.
As long as there is money to be made someone will be doing it. An investment of several million will be paid back in several months with millions more to follow. With a small initial investment and slow expansion the drillers don't need new investment money. Only the drillers that are heavily leveraged (and there are a lot) are going to be seriously hurt by the drop in oil prices. The ones operating on their own money can take the hit to profits and keep going, just slow drilling down until prices pick back up.
Prices will pick back up too, the Saudi's need more than $80 a barrel to break even. They've got 700 billion in reserves but at $50 a barrel they are burning large chunks of that every month. And the Russians, Venezuelans and Iranians need even higher prices, upwards of $100 a barrel. Even if the gulf and Saudi's can sustain this for a year it's not going to last much longer than that, they'll all end up bankrupt. The Venezuelans are already running around screaming murder to anyone that will listen, the Iranians are starting to make similar sounds and it won't be long before others start.
And as soon as prices rebound those same companies, maybe with different names, then start drilling again. The fact is they move pricing where it needs to be for them to survive and the tight oil drillers are profitable. They are simply trying to come to terms with the fact that they will have to cut production to maintain prices.
You can objectively argue that government shouldn't have any financial role in assisting the creation of art (in which case there are a LOT more areas where funding needs to be cut including university funding) or you accept that government has a role in funding the creation of art but no say in what art is created.
Government in this country is specifically prevented from having a say in free speech which includes art so if government funds it they don't get a say in the result.
Arguing that the contract requires they purchase unrelated channels to get a single channel is not contract related is a bunch of horseshit. It IS a contractual problem, because the content providers refuse to sell channels outside bundles which essentially forces bundling on the provider.
Personally I believe this is a regulatory action the government should take, they should make it illegal to force bundle channels to providers and require that they sell channels to all providers on equal terms and without bias. There should be a cost to that government granted monopoly and one of them should be that they can't discriminate against delivery methods or require the purchase of entire channel catalogs to get a single channel. We've given these companies the ability to destroy competing delivery services which has resulted in monopoly collusion between content creators and distributors. This monopoly should be broken, and laws should be passed to prevent it from ever happening again.
I personally don't believe distribution companies (ie cable & sat companies, netflix, etc) should be able to own content and that allowing that to happen has resulted in a significant portion of the last decades price increases for content.
The law in most nations says that at the age of majority you are an independent "person" with the law assuming such a person is sentient and a aware of their actions, though again in most jurisdictions if you can prove you are incapable of rational thought and/or unable to assist with your defense that you are therefore unable to be held culpable and will be committed to a facility until such time as you are.
There have been some rather cool early childhood studies on sentience and self awareness. From my recollection it comes in phases with the first self awareness occurring around 2 when the child realizes they are a separate individual and recognize that in their own reflection. The bulk of self awareness is there by about 5 years old but there is neither experience in life or experience in emotions to make much of that until much later. Most western nations recognize legal independence at around 18 years of age.
I can remember a Cadillac where to change the starter motor you had to take the head assembly off along with the dissembling of pretty much the rest of the engine to get to the point where you could take the head off. Because of all the labor it would cost like $1000 to change a $40 starter motor or a $5 solenoid.
You think anybody should be allowed to use whatever city infrastructure they like?
The entire purpose of public property is for public use, it if wasn't we would be communists. To try to deny access to anyone to public property is a violation of equal protection. Anyone and everyone that wants to start a public utility of whatever sort they want should have equal access to public property as anyone else does. Exclusive agreements for public property access have been struck down every single time someone tries to enforce them because they aren't legal. Any "franchise" agreement that has terms limiting it to a single utility are illegal on their face and those terms will never be allowed to be enforced.
The supreme court ruling on the thermal imaging was damn conclusive in my opinion. They talked extensively about the castle doctrine that what you do in your own home is private and there is a very very high barrier for police to be able to breach that.
Though there is a difference between this case and that. The police in the thermal imaging case were scanning entire neighborhoods looking for grow lights. This appears to be a more targeted use and if there's one thing the supreme court has shown over the years is that there isn't a drug law yet that they don't like regardless of how many rights it violates.
The F-35 isn't significantly more expensive than a F-18 to build if all you look at is direct construction cost and stop rolling in all the R&D and tooling costs that have already been paid.
Such rules were made unenforcable along with HOA restrictions in 1992. They can bar you from putting holes through the wall and roof, but if the dish is in rented personel space you can tell them to fuck off. If they retaliate you can sue them for enforcing illegal contract provisions and you will win.
I agree with you about trust but don't about the reasons why.
The US dollar has several important advantages.
1. Trust as you said, but encompasses several factors. The first is that the US's separation of powers provides a guarantee that no matter what is politically expedient or the people want without concurrence by all three branches it won't happen. Two the independence of the US court system is very powerful and the laws and case law that governs financial transactions is highly defined and well understood. This results in a system where foreigners are treated the same in financial transaction as US citizens and corporations. This is emboldened by the restraint congress shows towards the financial system, and the unwillingness of our politicians to slaughter the golden goose under any circumstance. The final component of the trust lies with the much maligned US federal reserve system. The US has basically put the private banking system in charge of the economy and they are chartered to maintain inflation between 1 and 2%. They have demonstrated this several times by slaughtering the late 1970's economy to halt inflation that was higher than 3%, even against the complaints and maneuvering of president Carter and again under the second Regan administration and most recently with QE1, 2 and 3.
2. The trust in the system builds in another important factor and that is the transparency of our system. Almost everything is done in the open, the Fed doesn't make a move without warning about it for weeks or more frequently months and years. There are only one or two other systems which even have this.
3. Trust combined with Transparency yields Stability. Behind the Fed's primary mandate on inflation their second most important objective is stability. They've demonstrated absolute devotion that they will do whatever it takes to maintain stability in the system. This was demonstrated most recently with the QE's. The Fed basically created more than 4 trillion dollars out of thin air and gave it to the banks to do with whatever they wanted. This injected massive liquidity into the system at its most broken point and restarted lending because the banks were handed all that money and weren't charged any interest for it. Many people (particularly Edrogan of Turkey) don't realize the boom in the BRICS group was a direct result of all this free money. The banks took those trillions and invested it in systems that offered the highest possible return and this made massive dollars available in those markets propelling their economies forward. But the end of QE means the end of free money and a return of the slow growth to these nations along with all those trillions being pulled bank into the US system. Stability is one of the Dollars most important attributes. It's why it's the currency of choice in dozens of nations around the world, from countries like Zimbabwe that have no local currency to countries like Venezuela that are seeing hyper inflation to Argentina who has a love affair with the stability of the dollar.
4. Is the most complicated attribute, it ties two concepts together and that is the US governments willingness to run massive trade deficits to allow enough dollars to flow outward to satisfy demand and the Feds willingness to flood the market with dollars if they are needed to maintain that inflation mandate. This allows the dollar to have trillions of dollars floating all around the world completely out of US control.
The UK is the only nation I'm aware of that met conditions 1-3. The pound would likely still be a major player but for two reasons. The first is that at the end of the war the UK government was leveraged (indebted) to 250% of GDP (the Tea Party was created out of the idea of 100% of GDP). They were also severely economically damaged during the war. London had massive infrastructure (capital) damage and the UK had lost billions of pounds. Not the least of which was the several billion pounds (2014 pound) of equipment lost during the Dunkirk evacuation. But most importa
The common refrain that the solution to pollution is dilution only works up until the point where you've put out so much pollution that you are actively damaging the entire planet rather than just a small location.
People thought like you in the early part of the 20th century, the solution to the choking smog in the major eastern industrial cities was to put up huge smokestacks that pumped the smoke and soot above the cities where it would migrate hundreds of miles until it descended. It was a great solution until they realized that in doing so all they did was move the problem when entire stretches of Canada's lakes and streams began to get so acidic that all life in the area was threatened.
Though you are right that the pollution from these ships is fairly rapidly converted to acid and dumped into the ocean there is a pretty high likelihood that in time that is going to come back and bite us in the ass just like the smokestacks of the 20th century did. The solution to pollution is to simply not pollute in the first place. The inconsequential increase in costs that would be associated with requiring these ships to burn the same clean fuel used on land and to employ pollution scrubbers and catalytic converters does not justify allowing them to save a nickle at the long term expense of the rest of humanity. The idea that anyone in international waters can do whatever the fuck they want is a leftover of the same 20th century thinking that led to the smokestacks and it should be abolished just like the smokestacks.
Sarkeesian was going to speak at Utah State University. An anonymous person threatened to go on a shooting rampage and claimed to have multiple weapons and bombs. So there's your proof, someone threatened to go on a school shooting to prevent her from speaking. Such threats are very serious, if they catch the person that made them they will be going to jail.
The only problem is that those predictions and the article you are quoting were later shown to be a bunch of hogwash.
Pro-prohibition people you like you always want to have your cake and eat it too.
Why don't you write an essay on the effects of legalization on say gang violence, the reduced spending due to far fewer incarceration. The available police time because they are no longer arresting everyone found with an ounce of weed. Pointing to robberies associated with legalization while ignoring that criminal gangs can no longer exploit weed for illegal profit is the height of dishonesty.
The fact is the US spends 12 billion dollars a year on drug enforcement, between enforcement and incarceration. That is a ridiculous amount of money. The social and secondary costs of said enforcement and incarceration are probably double or triple the actual expenditure. The war on drugs is a failure just like prohibition 1.0. It's insanity to continue with prohibition 2.0.
Slashdot Mirror
Here here! There shouldn't be ANY forfeiture to government without a finding of guilt (or debt owed). I consider this a blatant end run around the US property rights and I'm terrified the supreme court not only allowed it but has continually allowed it to expand ever outward.
Oh and when did they conclude it was unworkable? When Obama proposed it? You couldn't show a verifiable source that shows dis-ownership of this plan before Obama and the "democrats" proposed it in 2007/2008 if your life depended on it.
The ACA is nearly word for word the Heritage plan. The VERY same plan the Republicans under Gingrich counter proposed to Clinton when Hillary was pushing her healthcare overhaul to congress. And it's the very same plan the GOP and Heritage both endorsed and supported as a "market based reform of the healthcare system" when Romney created Romneycare and right up until Obama was elected when it was suddenly unworkable.
And every time someone like you tries to deny the history there is going to be someone there pointing out that this IS the republican healthcare plan (and also the reason they never proposed a counter to Obamacare). Had Romney proposed it instead of Obama it would be being touted from the hills as the work of the Heritage foundation and a "market based reform" that places "responsibility to pay for healthcare on the people using the system" and endorses "individual responsibility" and all the other buzzword phrases the Heritage foundation used when they created and supported it.
You can still hate Obamacare, even if it was born by Conservatives on the libertarian GOP side funded by the Koch brothers. That doesn't mean you have to like it, unless you are one of those mindless freaks that thinks that just because someone on "your side" created it that you have to like it or you were one of the people that drafted it. But there is no memory hole, you don't get to rewrite history.
Do you expect Obama to pass a law? Congress needs to end it, based on this action it's apparent Obama would sign the bill but without congress this is as far as Holder can go. You know checks and balances and all that.
Thank god for John Oliver bringing this to the attention of millions that didn't know about it. He should get an award for it, and I mean that seriously.
Civil forfeiture allowed small time cops to basically rob people at gun point with no trial and no criminal activity involved. It LONG ago turned into a funding source rather than an avenue to shut down crime. Notice that better than half the post article discusses how this will cut funding to police departments and how it's going to hurt policing even though studies have shown the vast majority of civil forfeiture never involves a criminal trial.
Unfortunately for us the part of the Republican party that supports civil liberties is for the most part dead outside support for the 2nd. Civil forfeiture is a GOP creation, and it's received it's strongest and most vocal support from that same party since it's creation. There are a few of the tea party stripe that care about civil liberties outside the 2nd, but their number is quite small and they are all tea party (and hated by the non tea-party gop).
The saddest part about this was that prior to Regan, the GOP was the primary party that defended civil rights. The democrats are far too likely to pass hate speech laws and to otherwise curtail rights. When the GOP shifted to the law and order party during the Nixon and Regan years they tacitly decided to abandon civil rights (except for the 2nd, and that's only because the 2nd is well defended by a well financed grass roots group).
I totally agree. Lets completely eliminate checks and balances in the system. That way we can have a gerrymandered congress decide everything for us and absolutely no way to check that power to ensure it's not abused.
Or we could trust that checks and balances in this country is one of our strongest features of government. You know like the founders believed. But you probably think they are a bunch of fucking morons.
According to the charging documents he most certainly did. They document a case where he hired a hitman to wipe out a former developer but the job went to the FBI who faked the death and provided "proof". Said person is one of the witnesses against him that he is DPR. You might argue that it's a made up story but the story exists.
There are over 100 Linux distributions. I can guarantee with absolute certainty that not everyone one of them has switched to systemd. You don't like the new car Ford released so you switch to a boat, makes perfect sense.
Would you like a burp and a nap too?
Regardless about the specifics of the case, it's illegal to actively block someones wifi, for whatever reason. At least in the US the only people that can do that are the military and FCC. The FCC could authorize someone to do it, but by all appearances they will not ever allow that. The FCC is chartered to protect the airwaves and people actively jamming other people (even if it's targeted jamming) are damaging the airwaves.
I point you to the ordinary guy driving around with a cell phone jammer that got hit with a 5 digit fine.
$100 dollars a month, starting at age 20 is enough to generate a very substantial nest egg by the time you reach 65, even in future dollars.
Go here:
http://money.cnn.com/tools/sav...
Put in $1200 per year taxable saving. Put in zero's for how much you have (taxable) 28% federal, 6% state, 0 for tax deferred and 0 per year. Then 45 in years to save (20 to 65) and put in an annual growth of 6%.
Results:
Your current savings will grow to:
$183,100
Inflation adjusted:
$46,496
That is not nothing, you won't be living high on the hog but you will have a reliable nest egg and if you were smart and bought a house and paid it off during those 40 years you will have more than enough to survive even if they decimate social security.
As long as there is money to be made someone will be doing it. An investment of several million will be paid back in several months with millions more to follow. With a small initial investment and slow expansion the drillers don't need new investment money. Only the drillers that are heavily leveraged (and there are a lot) are going to be seriously hurt by the drop in oil prices. The ones operating on their own money can take the hit to profits and keep going, just slow drilling down until prices pick back up.
Prices will pick back up too, the Saudi's need more than $80 a barrel to break even. They've got 700 billion in reserves but at $50 a barrel they are burning large chunks of that every month. And the Russians, Venezuelans and Iranians need even higher prices, upwards of $100 a barrel. Even if the gulf and Saudi's can sustain this for a year it's not going to last much longer than that, they'll all end up bankrupt. The Venezuelans are already running around screaming murder to anyone that will listen, the Iranians are starting to make similar sounds and it won't be long before others start.
And as soon as prices rebound those same companies, maybe with different names, then start drilling again. The fact is they move pricing where it needs to be for them to survive and the tight oil drillers are profitable. They are simply trying to come to terms with the fact that they will have to cut production to maintain prices.
You can objectively argue that government shouldn't have any financial role in assisting the creation of art (in which case there are a LOT more areas where funding needs to be cut including university funding) or you accept that government has a role in funding the creation of art but no say in what art is created.
Government in this country is specifically prevented from having a say in free speech which includes art so if government funds it they don't get a say in the result.
Arguing that the contract requires they purchase unrelated channels to get a single channel is not contract related is a bunch of horseshit. It IS a contractual problem, because the content providers refuse to sell channels outside bundles which essentially forces bundling on the provider.
Personally I believe this is a regulatory action the government should take, they should make it illegal to force bundle channels to providers and require that they sell channels to all providers on equal terms and without bias. There should be a cost to that government granted monopoly and one of them should be that they can't discriminate against delivery methods or require the purchase of entire channel catalogs to get a single channel. We've given these companies the ability to destroy competing delivery services which has resulted in monopoly collusion between content creators and distributors. This monopoly should be broken, and laws should be passed to prevent it from ever happening again.
I personally don't believe distribution companies (ie cable & sat companies, netflix, etc) should be able to own content and that allowing that to happen has resulted in a significant portion of the last decades price increases for content.
The law in most nations says that at the age of majority you are an independent "person" with the law assuming such a person is sentient and a aware of their actions, though again in most jurisdictions if you can prove you are incapable of rational thought and/or unable to assist with your defense that you are therefore unable to be held culpable and will be committed to a facility until such time as you are.
There have been some rather cool early childhood studies on sentience and self awareness. From my recollection it comes in phases with the first self awareness occurring around 2 when the child realizes they are a separate individual and recognize that in their own reflection. The bulk of self awareness is there by about 5 years old but there is neither experience in life or experience in emotions to make much of that until much later. Most western nations recognize legal independence at around 18 years of age.
I can remember a Cadillac where to change the starter motor you had to take the head assembly off along with the dissembling of pretty much the rest of the engine to get to the point where you could take the head off. Because of all the labor it would cost like $1000 to change a $40 starter motor or a $5 solenoid.
The entire purpose of public property is for public use, it if wasn't we would be communists. To try to deny access to anyone to public property is a violation of equal protection. Anyone and everyone that wants to start a public utility of whatever sort they want should have equal access to public property as anyone else does. Exclusive agreements for public property access have been struck down every single time someone tries to enforce them because they aren't legal. Any "franchise" agreement that has terms limiting it to a single utility are illegal on their face and those terms will never be allowed to be enforced.
The supreme court ruling on the thermal imaging was damn conclusive in my opinion. They talked extensively about the castle doctrine that what you do in your own home is private and there is a very very high barrier for police to be able to breach that.
Though there is a difference between this case and that. The police in the thermal imaging case were scanning entire neighborhoods looking for grow lights. This appears to be a more targeted use and if there's one thing the supreme court has shown over the years is that there isn't a drug law yet that they don't like regardless of how many rights it violates.
The F-35 isn't significantly more expensive than a F-18 to build if all you look at is direct construction cost and stop rolling in all the R&D and tooling costs that have already been paid.
Such rules were made unenforcable along with HOA restrictions in 1992. They can bar you from putting holes through the wall and roof, but if the dish is in rented personel space you can tell them to fuck off. If they retaliate you can sue them for enforcing illegal contract provisions and you will win.
I agree with you about trust but don't about the reasons why.
The US dollar has several important advantages.
1. Trust as you said, but encompasses several factors. The first is that the US's separation of powers provides a guarantee that no matter what is politically expedient or the people want without concurrence by all three branches it won't happen. Two the independence of the US court system is very powerful and the laws and case law that governs financial transactions is highly defined and well understood. This results in a system where foreigners are treated the same in financial transaction as US citizens and corporations. This is emboldened by the restraint congress shows towards the financial system, and the unwillingness of our politicians to slaughter the golden goose under any circumstance. The final component of the trust lies with the much maligned US federal reserve system. The US has basically put the private banking system in charge of the economy and they are chartered to maintain inflation between 1 and 2%. They have demonstrated this several times by slaughtering the late 1970's economy to halt inflation that was higher than 3%, even against the complaints and maneuvering of president Carter and again under the second Regan administration and most recently with QE1, 2 and 3.
2. The trust in the system builds in another important factor and that is the transparency of our system. Almost everything is done in the open, the Fed doesn't make a move without warning about it for weeks or more frequently months and years. There are only one or two other systems which even have this.
3. Trust combined with Transparency yields Stability. Behind the Fed's primary mandate on inflation their second most important objective is stability. They've demonstrated absolute devotion that they will do whatever it takes to maintain stability in the system. This was demonstrated most recently with the QE's. The Fed basically created more than 4 trillion dollars out of thin air and gave it to the banks to do with whatever they wanted. This injected massive liquidity into the system at its most broken point and restarted lending because the banks were handed all that money and weren't charged any interest for it. Many people (particularly Edrogan of Turkey) don't realize the boom in the BRICS group was a direct result of all this free money. The banks took those trillions and invested it in systems that offered the highest possible return and this made massive dollars available in those markets propelling their economies forward. But the end of QE means the end of free money and a return of the slow growth to these nations along with all those trillions being pulled bank into the US system. Stability is one of the Dollars most important attributes. It's why it's the currency of choice in dozens of nations around the world, from countries like Zimbabwe that have no local currency to countries like Venezuela that are seeing hyper inflation to Argentina who has a love affair with the stability of the dollar.
4. Is the most complicated attribute, it ties two concepts together and that is the US governments willingness to run massive trade deficits to allow enough dollars to flow outward to satisfy demand and the Feds willingness to flood the market with dollars if they are needed to maintain that inflation mandate. This allows the dollar to have trillions of dollars floating all around the world completely out of US control.
The UK is the only nation I'm aware of that met conditions 1-3. The pound would likely still be a major player but for two reasons. The first is that at the end of the war the UK government was leveraged (indebted) to 250% of GDP (the Tea Party was created out of the idea of 100% of GDP). They were also severely economically damaged during the war. London had massive infrastructure (capital) damage and the UK had lost billions of pounds. Not the least of which was the several billion pounds (2014 pound) of equipment lost during the Dunkirk evacuation. But most importa
The common refrain that the solution to pollution is dilution only works up until the point where you've put out so much pollution that you are actively damaging the entire planet rather than just a small location.
People thought like you in the early part of the 20th century, the solution to the choking smog in the major eastern industrial cities was to put up huge smokestacks that pumped the smoke and soot above the cities where it would migrate hundreds of miles until it descended. It was a great solution until they realized that in doing so all they did was move the problem when entire stretches of Canada's lakes and streams began to get so acidic that all life in the area was threatened.
Though you are right that the pollution from these ships is fairly rapidly converted to acid and dumped into the ocean there is a pretty high likelihood that in time that is going to come back and bite us in the ass just like the smokestacks of the 20th century did. The solution to pollution is to simply not pollute in the first place. The inconsequential increase in costs that would be associated with requiring these ships to burn the same clean fuel used on land and to employ pollution scrubbers and catalytic converters does not justify allowing them to save a nickle at the long term expense of the rest of humanity. The idea that anyone in international waters can do whatever the fuck they want is a leftover of the same 20th century thinking that led to the smokestacks and it should be abolished just like the smokestacks.
Are you serious?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
Sarkeesian was going to speak at Utah State University. An anonymous person threatened to go on a shooting rampage and claimed to have multiple weapons and bombs. So there's your proof, someone threatened to go on a school shooting to prevent her from speaking. Such threats are very serious, if they catch the person that made them they will be going to jail.
The only problem is that those predictions and the article you are quoting were later shown to be a bunch of hogwash.
Pro-prohibition people you like you always want to have your cake and eat it too.
Why don't you write an essay on the effects of legalization on say gang violence, the reduced spending due to far fewer incarceration. The available police time because they are no longer arresting everyone found with an ounce of weed. Pointing to robberies associated with legalization while ignoring that criminal gangs can no longer exploit weed for illegal profit is the height of dishonesty.
The fact is the US spends 12 billion dollars a year on drug enforcement, between enforcement and incarceration. That is a ridiculous amount of money. The social and secondary costs of said enforcement and incarceration are probably double or triple the actual expenditure. The war on drugs is a failure just like prohibition 1.0. It's insanity to continue with prohibition 2.0.