It's never acceptable to tailgate, even to send a signal that you want to pass. A simple flash of the headlights is safe and effective. A driver could need to swerve or slam on the brakes at any moment. Impatience is no excuse for not maintaining safe following distance. Repeat after me: it's never acceptable to tailgate.
I think you're being narrow-minded and naive. You seem to think you have an awfully firm grasp on the future, the unknown.
Guns are necessary tools for purposes such as personal safety, hunting, animal control, etc. I have the impression that the UK prefers its government to take care of citizens, rather than citizens taking responsibility for themselves. With all the draconian measures and laws in place in the UK, I don't understand how you or any citizen could have such faith in its government.
The USA wouldn't exist if its citizens hadn't owned firearms. Whether it's necessary to maintain a free society, I suppose, can't be proven. But it's clear that in order to create one, they are.
Regardless of the free society argument, it should be the right of every human being to defend himself and his family against bodily harm. The fact is that violent criminals will always exist--evil will exist as long as this world is spinning. The fact is that government cannot prevent violent crimes from occuring. But in the UK, even some police aren't armed. In such an environment, clearly the government doesn't want any citizens to be armed. And if its citizens believe that it's ok for police to be unarmed, it doesn't surprise me that they are afraid for anyone else to be armed, either. In a place where one who defends himself can be charged with a more serious crime than his attacker, things are clearly backwards.
Don't get me wrong, I don't hate the UK or anyone else. I'm just calling it like I see it and explaining what I don't agree with.
As I said, whether a government respects its constitution is another matter. I still think it's much better to live in a place which does codify its citizens' rights than a place which doesn't. Don't misunderstand me: I'm not saying it's better to live in NK than the UK. I hope you know what I mean. But it seems to me like the UK has been sliding toward totalitarianism rather quickly as of late. I wonder if that would be happening as it is if they did have a formal constitution and bill of rights.
Hasty generalization there, but so are most of the posts about the law, since the law varies by jurisdiction, making most of these arguments moot.
Situation: car in right lane whose speed varies from +2 to -2 relative to the speed limit. Car in left lane driving speed limit in attempt to pass car in right lane. Another car in left lane, whose driver is impatient, wants to drive +10, and who is tailgating the car ahead.
Who's violating the law? Who's violating the spirit of the law? Who's driving safely? Who's driving unsafely? Who's being polite? Who's being impolite? Who, if anyone, should be pulled over by police?
The only real solution is for cars to be locked to the same speed and minimum following distances, with accurate measurements that don't vary by car. Even if this were technically possible, and I suppose it would be if money were no object, it would impinge on individual freedoms. No, thanks.
The real problem is people. People are selfish and don't have respect for the dangers inherent in driving. They think they are more important than other drivers, and that an accident won't happen to them.
And you can't fix stupid.
(Or you could seriously crack down on unsafe driving, but then who'd still be on the road?)
That is not the cause of backups. The cause of backups is failure to maintain safe following distance. This requires people to slow down by more mph and more rapidly, which cascades backwards--rather than slowing slightly for a few seconds long before safety is compromised.
The solution is for the drivers who insist on driving so fast to maintain safe following distance at all times, and only pass when it's safe to do so--rather than tailgating the "slow" car and cutting off drivers in other lanes in order to pass. Of course, they won't.
Try this: next time you hit a traffic jam, keep some distance from the car ahead, and come to a stop as rarely as possible, increasing and decreasing speed gradually. This will let other cars merge into your lane easily, and prevent cars behind you from having to stop. You won't be able to see it, but you'll be helping to reduce the jam effect behind you. (You'll even be being green, because stopping and starting burns more fuel.)
Your assertions are full of false dilemmas and hasty generalizations.
1. Just because someone is driving at the speed limit in the left lane does not mean he cannot move to the right lane to let faster cars pass in the left lane.
2. There are situations in which it is completely reasonable to drive in the left lane even if not passing other cars, such as a) poor road condition in the right lane; b) an urban area with many on- and off-ramps and lots of merging traffic, when the driver is passing straight through; c) a right lane that is too crowded to maintain safe following distance (3 seconds minimum for average cars, 5+ recommended, or even more required for heavier vehicles).
3. Then there are times on the Interstate when I'm going 3-5 mph over the speed limit in the left lane, passing cars in the right lane, sometimes in order to get to a place in traffic where I can drive in the right lane at the speed limit and maintain safe following distance. Then drivers who want to drive 7-10+ mph over the speed limit come up and tailgate me until I can safely drive in the right lane. (I'm not talking about urban rush hour traffic where everyone in a lane drives far over the speed limit.) In this case, my options are to a) maintain my speed until I can drive safely in the right lane; b) increase my speed to far above the speed limit to avoid being tailgated (tailgating being unsafe for all drivers on the road, as it removes any margin for error if an evasive maneuver or hard braking were suddenly required), which doesn't guarantee that the driver won't simply speed up as much as I do; or c) merge into the right lane in an unsafe spot in traffic. In this situation, I feel no obligation to get out of the way of a driver who insists on exceeding the speed limit by 2-3 times more than I already am, and I refuse to put drivers in the right lane in an unsafe situation and require them to brake, which cascades backwards.
This situation happens over and over every time I make a trip on the Interstate, because there are fundamentally two types of drivers: those who are aware and those who are oblivious--or those who are safe and those who are unsafe.
There are plenty of oblivious drivers who will cruise in the right lane at unsafe following distances--I refuse to do that. There are also plenty of oblivious drivers who will always drive faster than the car ahead until they start to tailgate them, regardless of the speed limit or the other car's speed; these drivers can also be recognized by their tendency to not even see cars ahead of them until within about a hundred feet, and their refusal to move into the passing lane until very close to the car ahead, even when the left lane is empty as far as the eye can see.
Then there are drivers who are aware of traffic and of safe following distances, who avoid being trapped or surrounded by other traffic, who try to not be in such situations for longer than necessary, and who refuse to put other drivers at additional risk. Sometimes driving this way means inconveniencing oblivious drivers of the second kind. Too bad--they're already inconveniencing other drivers by their lack of awareness and self-important attitudes.
How can the TSA be imprisoned? It's not a person. How can the government imprison itself? How can the government freeze its own assets? The judicial branch does not enforce rulings, the executive branch does. How can the executive branch imprison itself? Whose responsibility is that branch? Who's responsible for replacing the TSA officials who have not complied with the ruling?
Guns do not create a free and open society--people do. Guns are a necessary tool. Hammers and saws do not build houses--people do. Hammers and saws are necessary tools.
Blame the user, not the tool. Or to use your own argument against you: to suggest that the simple presence or absence of guns should correlate with free and open societies is overly simplistic.
You're right, guns don't make for a stable society--people do.
Since most people aren't violent criminals, arming most people is a better idea than outlawing guns, in which case only violent criminals would be armed. Such criminals won't mind breaking a gun law--they're already willing to perpetrate violence.
Won't arming everyone simply lead to civil war and chaotic and impulsive violence? Can every single American be trusted with a gun? Look at places like Afghanistan where a significant fraction of the populace are armed; it sure is hell on earth.
These are irrational, meaningless, thoughtless statements.
1. Many Americans are armed already, and this has been the case since the nation was founded, as well as since the Civil War. A Civil War was fought, but it's pointless to speculate about whether it would have been avoided if guns had been outlawed, since such a prohibition would have been unenforcable then (not to mention absurd--guns are not simply for shooting people). We have not suffered from chaos. "Impulsive violence" is so vague as to be meaningless. Random crimes will not be prevented by outlawing guns. On the other hand, an armed citizenry does help prevent random crimes.
2. There are other nations in which every citizen is explicitly armed. They have not suffered from civil war, chaos, or impulsive violence.
3. Your strawman, "Can every single American be trusted with a gun?" is transparent. There are obviously those who cannot be, such as convicted, violent criminals, and the clinically insane.
4. Afghanistan is a useless example. You completely ignore its history, its culture, its geography, and the recent armed invasion and ongoing revolution. But in the end, it's better for its citizens to be armed, so its citizens can freely pursue the government they desire and defend against encroachment by their government. Revolution is, by necessity, a messy business. Or would you rather have a government like those in other Middle Eastern, Islamic nations ruling over unarmed citizens by threat of violence?
The freedom we enjoy was not bought by our government--it was bought by its citizens, who founded the government. Power must ultimately remain in the hands of citizens, not the government. Without accountability, the very nature of government corrupts individuals who serve in it, if for no other reason than that those with power may impose their wills on others, however well-intentioned they might be. Without the citizenry's ability to alter or replace the government, there is ultimately no accountability.
These are frightening truths, but the failure to recognize them and act accordingly leads to tyranny. Decide for yourself what you value most: freedom or safety.
Then you are a vigilante. We have laws and police and courts for a reason. As was said, you are one who would take it upon himself to perpetrate vengeful violence upon another human being--not simply enough to stop a crime in progress. You have no respect for due process of law. You have appointed yourself judge, jury, and executioner. You are as bad as, if not worse than, said hypothetical rapist. Shame on you.
Do any of those countries have constitutions with bills of rights? If not, their governments are free to impinge upon their rights at any time--there is no security in such a place, and ultimately no freedom.
Whether the U.S. government respects the Constitution, et al, is another matter.
The most valuable form of wealth is freedom, not money. This nation was founded upon principles of freedom, not of people having the same amount of money--that's communism.
That is one of the big problems facing our nation today: people value money above all else. Not only does this lead to the rich getting richer, but it also leads to people being discontent unless they are also financially wealthy--relative to whom, I suppose, varies.
People who are demanding that wealth be redistributed from the rich to the poor are fighting for a goal of lesser importance, and one that vaguely reeks of communism. Now I will be the first to admit that there are serious problems with corporations in this nation concentrating far too much wealth and power, and with issues like CEOs' bailouts, etc. The day of the Citizens' United ruling was a sad day for our country, as it gave corporations equality with--nay, superiority to--individual citizens, who are real human beings with finite lives and natural vulnerabilities.
But there are more serious, yet subtle, issues facing our nation today. If we have not freedom, it matters not what our standard of living is; it matters not how wealthy our neighbor is; it matters not how wealthy some "VIP" is.
In the end, money is not life; it does not give life; it does not take life. Freedom is the ability to live in the pursuit of happiness according to one's free will; freedom gives life to new ideas and new possibilities; not having freedom takes away the fabric of life itself. Freedom equally benefits all mankind, irrespective of race, sex, age, beliefs, or wealth.
We should be advocates of, chiefly, freedom. Our ancestors understood this, and so they were willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for us. Shame on us for allowing ourselves to be distracted by worldly things such as money; shame on us for devaluing that which was bought with blood. Lives were not willingly given for the sake of having more money, or food, or a nicer house or car, or more leisure time--they were given for the sake of freedom.
Yet, what is the loudest protest we hear? "The rich are too rich!" Such has always been, and always shall be, the case. Indeed, freedom includes the right to pursue happiness, which some people believe is best acquired by pursuing wealth. It is their God-given right to make that decision, however misguided it may be.
The rich people being rich is not a doomsday scenario. A real doomsday scenario is what people feared during the Cold War. Almost as bad is to willingly or obliviously give up that which was very painfully acquired many years ago. It will never be as possible as it was then to do what was necessary to give power to the citizens in whose hands it rightfully belongs.
Choose your priorities at your own peril. As the saying goes, "The best things in life are free." Or perhaps you are fond of the Firefly theme: "...I'm still free, You can't take the sky from me."
That is a good point. Who's to say what freedom of speech is? Of course, the definition of speech in the USA may not be universally agreed upon, since the SCOTUS ruled that, basically, money is speech. Also, some obscenity laws vary by state rather than being federal, which is a good thing.
I certainly am completely against any Nazi ideology. However, it's dangerous to say that one view is banned while another is not. In some countries, that idea is used to suppress what we would call freedom. Just look at China or Iran, or even some Southeast Asian countries.
I think this saying is wise: "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it." It's just as easy to suppress truth as it is to suppress evil using the same principles or laws.
This whole brouhaha is a red herring. He's like a talk show host: He's paid to have opinions and to express them vehemently, not to be right. Sometimes he's even like a lawyer, when he's asked to debate an issue's pro or con side, not to simply consider facts and offer a rational opinion.
It's kind of silly, like, oh, I don't know, ridiculing a marathon runner for not winning the race, when all he was trying to do was finish.
Whether it's good to publish pieces that are simply vitriol is another matter, but I guess he wouldn't get paid for it if they didn't sell--which controversy does.
Slashdot Mirror
It's never acceptable to tailgate, even to send a signal that you want to pass. A simple flash of the headlights is safe and effective. A driver could need to swerve or slam on the brakes at any moment. Impatience is no excuse for not maintaining safe following distance. Repeat after me: it's never acceptable to tailgate.
I think you're being narrow-minded and naive. You seem to think you have an awfully firm grasp on the future, the unknown.
Guns are necessary tools for purposes such as personal safety, hunting, animal control, etc. I have the impression that the UK prefers its government to take care of citizens, rather than citizens taking responsibility for themselves. With all the draconian measures and laws in place in the UK, I don't understand how you or any citizen could have such faith in its government.
The USA wouldn't exist if its citizens hadn't owned firearms. Whether it's necessary to maintain a free society, I suppose, can't be proven. But it's clear that in order to create one, they are.
Regardless of the free society argument, it should be the right of every human being to defend himself and his family against bodily harm. The fact is that violent criminals will always exist--evil will exist as long as this world is spinning. The fact is that government cannot prevent violent crimes from occuring. But in the UK, even some police aren't armed. In such an environment, clearly the government doesn't want any citizens to be armed. And if its citizens believe that it's ok for police to be unarmed, it doesn't surprise me that they are afraid for anyone else to be armed, either. In a place where one who defends himself can be charged with a more serious crime than his attacker, things are clearly backwards.
Don't get me wrong, I don't hate the UK or anyone else. I'm just calling it like I see it and explaining what I don't agree with.
Good quote, thanks.
Jim is dead?!
Nope--I figure as long as I haven't watched it, there's still some Firefly left to see. Thanks for spoiling it.
As I said, whether a government respects its constitution is another matter. I still think it's much better to live in a place which does codify its citizens' rights than a place which doesn't. Don't misunderstand me: I'm not saying it's better to live in NK than the UK. I hope you know what I mean. But it seems to me like the UK has been sliding toward totalitarianism rather quickly as of late. I wonder if that would be happening as it is if they did have a formal constitution and bill of rights.
Hasty generalization there, but so are most of the posts about the law, since the law varies by jurisdiction, making most of these arguments moot.
Situation: car in right lane whose speed varies from +2 to -2 relative to the speed limit. Car in left lane driving speed limit in attempt to pass car in right lane. Another car in left lane, whose driver is impatient, wants to drive +10, and who is tailgating the car ahead.
Who's violating the law?
Who's violating the spirit of the law?
Who's driving safely?
Who's driving unsafely?
Who's being polite?
Who's being impolite?
Who, if anyone, should be pulled over by police?
The only real solution is for cars to be locked to the same speed and minimum following distances, with accurate measurements that don't vary by car. Even if this were technically possible, and I suppose it would be if money were no object, it would impinge on individual freedoms. No, thanks.
The real problem is people. People are selfish and don't have respect for the dangers inherent in driving. They think they are more important than other drivers, and that an accident won't happen to them.
And you can't fix stupid.
(Or you could seriously crack down on unsafe driving, but then who'd still be on the road?)
The speed limit is a speed limit. If there is a minimum speed, it will also be posted, under the speed limit.
Or would you have the police detain drivers for not violating the law? Regardless of whether it's polite, it doesn't make it illegal.
That is not the cause of backups. The cause of backups is failure to maintain safe following distance. This requires people to slow down by more mph and more rapidly, which cascades backwards--rather than slowing slightly for a few seconds long before safety is compromised.
The solution is for the drivers who insist on driving so fast to maintain safe following distance at all times, and only pass when it's safe to do so--rather than tailgating the "slow" car and cutting off drivers in other lanes in order to pass. Of course, they won't.
Try this: next time you hit a traffic jam, keep some distance from the car ahead, and come to a stop as rarely as possible, increasing and decreasing speed gradually. This will let other cars merge into your lane easily, and prevent cars behind you from having to stop. You won't be able to see it, but you'll be helping to reduce the jam effect behind you. (You'll even be being green, because stopping and starting burns more fuel.)
Your assertions are full of false dilemmas and hasty generalizations.
1. Just because someone is driving at the speed limit in the left lane does not mean he cannot move to the right lane to let faster cars pass in the left lane.
2. There are situations in which it is completely reasonable to drive in the left lane even if not passing other cars, such as a) poor road condition in the right lane; b) an urban area with many on- and off-ramps and lots of merging traffic, when the driver is passing straight through; c) a right lane that is too crowded to maintain safe following distance (3 seconds minimum for average cars, 5+ recommended, or even more required for heavier vehicles).
3. Then there are times on the Interstate when I'm going 3-5 mph over the speed limit in the left lane, passing cars in the right lane, sometimes in order to get to a place in traffic where I can drive in the right lane at the speed limit and maintain safe following distance. Then drivers who want to drive 7-10+ mph over the speed limit come up and tailgate me until I can safely drive in the right lane. (I'm not talking about urban rush hour traffic where everyone in a lane drives far over the speed limit.) In this case, my options are to a) maintain my speed until I can drive safely in the right lane; b) increase my speed to far above the speed limit to avoid being tailgated (tailgating being unsafe for all drivers on the road, as it removes any margin for error if an evasive maneuver or hard braking were suddenly required), which doesn't guarantee that the driver won't simply speed up as much as I do; or c) merge into the right lane in an unsafe spot in traffic. In this situation, I feel no obligation to get out of the way of a driver who insists on exceeding the speed limit by 2-3 times more than I already am, and I refuse to put drivers in the right lane in an unsafe situation and require them to brake, which cascades backwards.
This situation happens over and over every time I make a trip on the Interstate, because there are fundamentally two types of drivers: those who are aware and those who are oblivious--or those who are safe and those who are unsafe.
There are plenty of oblivious drivers who will cruise in the right lane at unsafe following distances--I refuse to do that. There are also plenty of oblivious drivers who will always drive faster than the car ahead until they start to tailgate them, regardless of the speed limit or the other car's speed; these drivers can also be recognized by their tendency to not even see cars ahead of them until within about a hundred feet, and their refusal to move into the passing lane until very close to the car ahead, even when the left lane is empty as far as the eye can see.
Then there are drivers who are aware of traffic and of safe following distances, who avoid being trapped or surrounded by other traffic, who try to not be in such situations for longer than necessary, and who refuse to put other drivers at additional risk. Sometimes driving this way means inconveniencing oblivious drivers of the second kind. Too bad--they're already inconveniencing other drivers by their lack of awareness and self-important attitudes.
Australia suffers from other problems which the USA does not. Censorship, for one. Choose for yourself which you value more: freedom or security.
I'm not claiming one nation to be superior--that is a matter of opinion. One should be free to choose where he lives.
Couldn't the Chief Executive replace the TSA officials who have refused to comply with the ruling?
How can the TSA be imprisoned? It's not a person. How can the government imprison itself? How can the government freeze its own assets? The judicial branch does not enforce rulings, the executive branch does. How can the executive branch imprison itself? Whose responsibility is that branch? Who's responsible for replacing the TSA officials who have not complied with the ruling?
What qualifies as history?
Guns do not create a free and open society--people do. Guns are a necessary tool. Hammers and saws do not build houses--people do. Hammers and saws are necessary tools.
Blame the user, not the tool. Or to use your own argument against you: to suggest that the simple presence or absence of guns should correlate with free and open societies is overly simplistic.
You're right, guns don't make for a stable society--people do.
Since most people aren't violent criminals, arming most people is a better idea than outlawing guns, in which case only violent criminals would be armed. Such criminals won't mind breaking a gun law--they're already willing to perpetrate violence.
Won't arming everyone simply lead to civil war and chaotic and impulsive violence? Can every single American be trusted with a gun? Look at places like Afghanistan where a significant fraction of the populace are armed; it sure is hell on earth.
These are irrational, meaningless, thoughtless statements.
1. Many Americans are armed already, and this has been the case since the nation was founded, as well as since the Civil War. A Civil War was fought, but it's pointless to speculate about whether it would have been avoided if guns had been outlawed, since such a prohibition would have been unenforcable then (not to mention absurd--guns are not simply for shooting people). We have not suffered from chaos. "Impulsive violence" is so vague as to be meaningless. Random crimes will not be prevented by outlawing guns. On the other hand, an armed citizenry does help prevent random crimes.
2. There are other nations in which every citizen is explicitly armed. They have not suffered from civil war, chaos, or impulsive violence.
3. Your strawman, "Can every single American be trusted with a gun?" is transparent. There are obviously those who cannot be, such as convicted, violent criminals, and the clinically insane.
4. Afghanistan is a useless example. You completely ignore its history, its culture, its geography, and the recent armed invasion and ongoing revolution. But in the end, it's better for its citizens to be armed, so its citizens can freely pursue the government they desire and defend against encroachment by their government. Revolution is, by necessity, a messy business. Or would you rather have a government like those in other Middle Eastern, Islamic nations ruling over unarmed citizens by threat of violence?
The freedom we enjoy was not bought by our government--it was bought by its citizens, who founded the government. Power must ultimately remain in the hands of citizens, not the government. Without accountability, the very nature of government corrupts individuals who serve in it, if for no other reason than that those with power may impose their wills on others, however well-intentioned they might be. Without the citizenry's ability to alter or replace the government, there is ultimately no accountability.
These are frightening truths, but the failure to recognize them and act accordingly leads to tyranny. Decide for yourself what you value most: freedom or safety.
Then you are a vigilante. We have laws and police and courts for a reason. As was said, you are one who would take it upon himself to perpetrate vengeful violence upon another human being--not simply enough to stop a crime in progress. You have no respect for due process of law. You have appointed yourself judge, jury, and executioner. You are as bad as, if not worse than, said hypothetical rapist. Shame on you.
Useless speculation such as this is an enemy of rational thought and truth.
Do any of those countries have constitutions with bills of rights? If not, their governments are free to impinge upon their rights at any time--there is no security in such a place, and ultimately no freedom.
Whether the U.S. government respects the Constitution, et al, is another matter.
I take issue with your #3.
The most valuable form of wealth is freedom, not money. This nation was founded upon principles of freedom, not of people having the same amount of money--that's communism.
That is one of the big problems facing our nation today: people value money above all else. Not only does this lead to the rich getting richer, but it also leads to people being discontent unless they are also financially wealthy--relative to whom, I suppose, varies.
People who are demanding that wealth be redistributed from the rich to the poor are fighting for a goal of lesser importance, and one that vaguely reeks of communism. Now I will be the first to admit that there are serious problems with corporations in this nation concentrating far too much wealth and power, and with issues like CEOs' bailouts, etc. The day of the Citizens' United ruling was a sad day for our country, as it gave corporations equality with--nay, superiority to--individual citizens, who are real human beings with finite lives and natural vulnerabilities.
But there are more serious, yet subtle, issues facing our nation today. If we have not freedom, it matters not what our standard of living is; it matters not how wealthy our neighbor is; it matters not how wealthy some "VIP" is.
In the end, money is not life; it does not give life; it does not take life. Freedom is the ability to live in the pursuit of happiness according to one's free will; freedom gives life to new ideas and new possibilities; not having freedom takes away the fabric of life itself. Freedom equally benefits all mankind, irrespective of race, sex, age, beliefs, or wealth.
We should be advocates of, chiefly, freedom. Our ancestors understood this, and so they were willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for us. Shame on us for allowing ourselves to be distracted by worldly things such as money; shame on us for devaluing that which was bought with blood. Lives were not willingly given for the sake of having more money, or food, or a nicer house or car, or more leisure time--they were given for the sake of freedom.
Yet, what is the loudest protest we hear? "The rich are too rich!" Such has always been, and always shall be, the case. Indeed, freedom includes the right to pursue happiness, which some people believe is best acquired by pursuing wealth. It is their God-given right to make that decision, however misguided it may be.
The rich people being rich is not a doomsday scenario. A real doomsday scenario is what people feared during the Cold War. Almost as bad is to willingly or obliviously give up that which was very painfully acquired many years ago. It will never be as possible as it was then to do what was necessary to give power to the citizens in whose hands it rightfully belongs.
Choose your priorities at your own peril. As the saying goes, "The best things in life are free." Or perhaps you are fond of the Firefly theme: "...I'm still free, You can't take the sky from me."
That is a good point. Who's to say what freedom of speech is? Of course, the definition of speech in the USA may not be universally agreed upon, since the SCOTUS ruled that, basically, money is speech. Also, some obscenity laws vary by state rather than being federal, which is a good thing.
I certainly am completely against any Nazi ideology. However, it's dangerous to say that one view is banned while another is not. In some countries, that idea is used to suppress what we would call freedom. Just look at China or Iran, or even some Southeast Asian countries.
I think this saying is wise: "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it." It's just as easy to suppress truth as it is to suppress evil using the same principles or laws.
By the way, what is "arse obscenity"?
Those poor, imprisoned birds! Can't those people hit their own walls and windows? Slave labor isn't ok just because they're avians!
You write Perl on your iPhone? With that keyboard?
This whole brouhaha is a red herring. He's like a talk show host: He's paid to have opinions and to express them vehemently, not to be right. Sometimes he's even like a lawyer, when he's asked to debate an issue's pro or con side, not to simply consider facts and offer a rational opinion.
It's kind of silly, like, oh, I don't know, ridiculing a marathon runner for not winning the race, when all he was trying to do was finish.
Whether it's good to publish pieces that are simply vitriol is another matter, but I guess he wouldn't get paid for it if they didn't sell--which controversy does.
Not until the questioning titles stop being questioning.