I'd like to hear an explanation for that, because from where I sit it's the Government using "National Security" as an excuse to give a get-out-of-jail-free card to companies that willingly violated the law just because the Government asked them to do so.
The Government that still won't come clean about it's actions. Now it's the Executive and Legislative Branches of Government coming together to deny the people access to the third branch and any remaining ability to find out exactly what the hell happened and to hold those that broke the law accountable.
"All three of my representatives voted nay" -- that's not quite how the House works. One of those Representatives is "yours." The other two represent different districts, and are not subject to your vote.
Actually I was referring to my Federal representatives, not merely my representative in the House. That would include my Congressman (Hinchey, NY-22) and both of my Senators (Clinton and Schumer).
It was probably still a poor choice of words on my part though.
and wants the powers provided by FISA (not his own words obviously nor even paraphrasing - just my take on it).
What the hell is the solution to that short of armed revolution?
Every President in the modern era has supported these expansions of Executive power. The checks-and-balances system has failed miserably -- Congress doesn't have the balls to oppose the Executive Branch is actually happy to cede their authority, as long as the President is in the same party as them, of course. Whatever checks-and-balances remain are solely between the two parties and not the different branches of Government -- but that doesn't even hold true any longer as evidenced by the Democrats willingness to roll over and play dead when challenged by GWB on anything substantial.
WTF are we supposed to do? The ballot-box clearly doesn't matter. The soapbox is outright ignored. The jurybox is useless as long as checks-and-balances take a backseat to party politics. Breaking out the ammobox doesn't seem realistic when the vast majority of this country is content to cede their civil liberties as long as they have their iPods and the illusion of security from terrorists.
Obama will say "green" a lot in the next few weeks, babble about "corporations", promise "free" healthcare and you'll be right back in line.
Nice attempt at a troll, but none of those things are the reason why I started supporting him in the first place.
I started supporting him because he seemed to "get it". He wanted to end the war on science. He spoke of following the Constitution. He seemed geninuely informed about tech issues (including network neutrality). He talked about a new kind of politics where we can disagree without being disagreeable.
Now he has sold out a fundamental principle because it would probably have been too hard to defend it. He has exposed himself as the standard issue politician, willing to say anything to get elected and willing to retreat from past promises when they become inconvenient.
I may still vote for him but he has lost my support beyond that. Come to think of it, I live in a fairly blue state -- so I don't even feel an obligation to vote for him as the "lessor of two evils".
Guess I'll start reading up about Nader and Barr. I don't particularly like Nader and Barr scares the hell out of me but at this point in time I'm almost beyond caring. The bigger slap in the face is the fact that the person who opposed Obama actually had the balls to vote against this.
Whatever happens now I feel like I owe HRC supporters a big fat apology.
Lord knows I'm no defender of Bush, but it seems pretty clear that, despite his obvious un-smoothness with words (a trait many intelligent Slashdot posters certainly share), he clearly has a lot more of the Evil than of the Stupid.
I disagree. I think he has more of the stupid and Dick Cheney is the "evil" behind this administration. Anyone remember the GWB that spoke against nation-building and in favor of a "humble" foreign policy? How long did that last again?
Indeed. The Republicans argue that FISA is critical to national security -- but the President says he'll veto it without telecom immunity attached. So what do the Democrats do? Pass it without immunity and dare him to veto it? No! They cave and give him most of what he wanted.
This party is fucking worthless. Here's a novel idea: Pass it without immunity and when GWB vetoes it start running ads pointing out how the Republicans are placing us all in danger by refusing to compromise on a critical national security issue. If FISA is truly that important (I have my doubts but let's assume it is for the sake of the argument) then let's have an honest debate about it.
No, instead they caved. On some level I can understand why Obama did it -- he doesn't want the Republicans beating him over the head with a national-security issue -- but WTF was Pelosi's reasoning? If you believe in party politics it's her job to take the heat off the nominee. Why the hell did she even let this come up?
They are fucking worthless spineless jackasses. What is the goddamn point? Really, what's the fucking point anymore?
I'm proud to say that the senator that represents me (and that I actually voted for) voted Nay!
All three of my representatives voted nay as well. At least that's something.
I'm extremely dismayed to see Obama's reversal on this issue. I'd really like to hear what his reasoning was. I'm angry enough right now that I'm questioning why I've been supporting him all this time and wondering why I should be using my vacation time to go campaign for him (as I have been planning) when he just reversed himself on a major promise to his supporters? Why the hell should I keep giving him money when I could give it to my own representatives that actually had the backbone to oppose this?
I'll probably take a few days to cool off and then evaluate this situation further. Right now I'm mad as hell about it and if the election was held tomorrow I'd probably be voting for Nader. Hell, a write-in for Hillary even -- she had the balls to vote against it.
It was a failure on all levels. I wouldn't try to dispute or deny that. I just don't see how you can call it "getting our ass handed to us" in combination with your idea that civilizations change for the better after they get "stomped on a bit". Vietnam didn't place the United States in any direct danger. The Vietnamese Army wasn't pouring across our borders. Our cities weren't being bombed.
I just think the London Blitz is a much better example of a Western Civilization being "stomped a bit" than Vietnam is. We won most of the battles in Vietnam. We just didn't have the political willpower to win the war. That doesn't make it an asshanding. There was no Dein Bein Phu that American forces lost. The country just got tired of the war and wanted out. Iraq is much the same -- we've won every battle but there really isn't an effective solution that can be imposed by our armed forces.
Incidentally, I think that Iraq will turn out to be a similar boondoggle in the end, accomplishing nothing except pissing away international good will and further alienating the people against the government
I would agree with that assessment. Bush had a blank check of international goodwill after 9/11 and he pissed it away on invading Iraq. That will be his legacy.
The question though, is the Iranian program truly civilian in nature?
They claim it is. Most Western intelligence agencies think otherwise though.
At some point, nations are going to start needing nuclear power - we need a framework to give them the ability to have a strategically sound nuclear power infrastructure, without the fear of weapons proliferation
I agree. And I'm a huge advocate for nuclear power. The sad thing is that we already have the technology to make reactors that are useless for proliferation -- we just need to do a better job of promoting that technology and making it available. We could also have a framework to provide enriched uranium to them -- in fact I believe this was one of the proposals that we (or Europe?) offered to Iran some time ago.
but how do you make something like that palatable to arguably third-world tin-pot dictators?
You don't. You hope that they lose power before they obtain a nuclear weapon because going to war with them is only going to strengthen their hand domestically and give them an external enemy to blame for all of their problems. There's actually a lot to be optimistic about in Iran right now -- they had a moderate Government going for awhile until the Mullah's forbade them from running again. The people there do want change -- which is why I earnestly hope we can resolve this issue without going to war. If we start dropping bombs on them that movement is going to be silenced pretty rapidly.
We haven't made space exploration a priority for the last, ya know, 40 years.
If the article I referenced earlier (about a metals shortage) has any validity whatsoever we may see a commercial interest in space exploration. Space exploration backed by commercial interests is the only thing that's going to make it affordable in the end -- commerce was the major driving factor behind European colonization of the New World after all.
Actually I didn't completely miss it I just opted not to respond to it twice.
Here is my response addressing MAD -- which I think is what you were referring to. I'd rather live under MAD between nation-states then the constant threat of being blown up every time I go to work, the movies or out for pizza.
Did I try to hand-wave ("These are not the drones you are looking for...") away the requirements as trivial? All I said was that the problem of getting to Mars is not one that can't be overcome with our existing understanding of the laws of physics.
The energy involved in exiting a gravity well is 'ludicrous'
Ludicrous compared to what? Our current level of technological understanding? The energy involved in making a 747 stay aloft would probably seem pretty ludicrous to someone born at the turn of the 20th century. The energy output of a modern nuclear power plant would seem ludicrous to Edison or Westinghouse. The energy output of a nuclear weapon would seem ludicrous to anyone born before Einstein's theory of relativity was introduced.
There are huge challenges that we are going to need to overcome in the next century. Competition for resources and prestige will drive investments into the space program. Technical challenges will be identified and eventually overcome. All of this is achievable with known or projected technologies and our current understanding of the universe.
At the end of the day I do have optimism in the human race.
Sailing across the ocean was impractical 800 years ago. 80 years ago splitting the atom was impractical. 40-50 years ago it was impractical to have a powerful computer that didn't occupy an entire room. 20-30 years ago it was impractical to build a cellular network that could support tens of millions of users.
I just don't buy into this pessimism. There are many challenges that we will have to overcome -- but since when has that stopped us from attempting something?
If your argument is that we should abolish SSA then you might have a point. Eventually somebody will wind up paying into the system but not getting anything out of it.
I wasn't engaging in that type of discussion though. I was responding to the GP calling boomers "selfish bastards". That statement borders on flamebait to me -- someone is "selfish" for expecting a payout from a system that they've been putting money into for the last 30-40 years?
because I'm not going to get a single dime back out of it when I try to "retire" in 2047
Correction: You won't get as much as you are currently promised assuming no other action is taken between now and then. SSA has changed before -- raised payroll taxes, increased retirement ages, etc, etc. Assuming that you are going to get nothing out of it makes about as much sense as completely relying on it for all of your retirement planning.
However, the US has only ever really gotten its ass handed to it in Viet Nam and we're still in denial about that
Vietnam wasn't getting our 'ass handed' to us. At no point in the Vietnam War was the security of the mainland United States or that of it's citizens in any real danger. An "asshanding" to me would be something along the lines of The Blitz.
I would still agree with this statement though:
The only bright spot is that civilizations seem to change for the better after they get stomped a bit
MAD seems to work on nation-states -- even batshit crazy ones. Nazi Germany was deterred from using chemical weapons due to fears of massive Allied retaliation. They didn't even use them towards the end as the Red Army was encircling Berlin.
I've never understood why people think we can't deter Iran. There are other reasons to stop them from getting a nuclear bomb (allowing the NPT to collapse would have far reaching consequences beyond the Middle East) but this idea that Mullah's somehow aren't going to be moved by the prospect of their cities disappearing into clouds of nuclear fire strains creditability.
There's never been a 100 megaton H-bomb. The Russians tested a design that was supposedly capable of 100 megatons but it was mainly a propaganda stunt (it was actually tested at around 50 megatons). Such weapons are too large to be practical and so inefficient that they aren't worthwhile to use even if you have a delivery system that lug them around.
Most of the acrimony in our relationship with Russia is frankly America's fault.
That's funny, I kind of thought the guy who was busy arresting and/or poisoning political opponents kind of had something to do with it too.
Or was it the United States that contaminated part of a European capital with radioactive materials in a successful effort to murder a domestic political opponent?
There will be no Mars colony if we don't figure out something better than a big explosion. This makes it very likely that there will be no Mars colony.
We already have. Granted, we need to make the technology practical for real-world deployments but it's not as if this isn't a problem that can't be solved within the laws of physics as we currently understand them.
I could understand your pessimism if you were talking about a colony out near Alpha Centauri but Mars? You really don't think we can figure out the propulsion problem? You don't think we're going to have motivation to solve this problem?
Somewhere between 2015-2020, the boomers are going to going to be demanding their Social Security checks in record numbers. And, when those selfish bastards
Umm, whatever your other opinions about Federal spending/NASA it seems kind of stupid to call the boomers "selfish bastards" for wanting money out of SSA. It's not like they've paid Social Security Taxes for the last 30-40 years or anything.....
China is not this all powerful colossus that some people seem to think she is. They have serious problems that they need to overcome:
1) Their cities that are so polluted the air is barely breathable
2) The rural poverty that they still haven't managed to overcome
3) The fact that they are just as dependent on foreign energy sources as we are and making themselves more so with each passing year. We might even be in a better position than they are here too -- we have access to oil from friendly nations (Canada) and more domestic resources (the Gulf of Mexico) than they do. We also aren't investing in bringing millions of new carbon powered automobiles onto the road each year either.
4) The fact that within a generation they are going to have 200,000,000 - 250,000,000 more males than females (something completely without precedent in human history) as a result of the one-child policy.
It would be a huge mistake to underestimate them or the problems that we ourselves need to overcome but I'm growing weary of hearing people say that they are going to dominate or somehow beat us in the 21st century. They are no doubt going to compete with us -- but I'm optimistic that we'll hold our own. Western Civilization didn't fold the last time it was challenged -- it successfully beat a Great Depression and powerful directorships that aimed to slice up the World -- why assume it will this time?
Slashdot Mirror
I supported the telecom immunity
I'd like to hear an explanation for that, because from where I sit it's the Government using "National Security" as an excuse to give a get-out-of-jail-free card to companies that willingly violated the law just because the Government asked them to do so.
The Government that still won't come clean about it's actions. Now it's the Executive and Legislative Branches of Government coming together to deny the people access to the third branch and any remaining ability to find out exactly what the hell happened and to hold those that broke the law accountable.
"All three of my representatives voted nay" -- that's not quite how the House works. One of those Representatives is "yours." The other two represent different districts, and are not subject to your vote.
Actually I was referring to my Federal representatives, not merely my representative in the House. That would include my Congressman (Hinchey, NY-22) and both of my Senators (Clinton and Schumer).
It was probably still a poor choice of words on my part though.
and wants the powers provided by FISA (not his own words obviously nor even paraphrasing - just my take on it).
What the hell is the solution to that short of armed revolution?
Every President in the modern era has supported these expansions of Executive power. The checks-and-balances system has failed miserably -- Congress doesn't have the balls to oppose the Executive Branch is actually happy to cede their authority, as long as the President is in the same party as them, of course. Whatever checks-and-balances remain are solely between the two parties and not the different branches of Government -- but that doesn't even hold true any longer as evidenced by the Democrats willingness to roll over and play dead when challenged by GWB on anything substantial.
WTF are we supposed to do? The ballot-box clearly doesn't matter. The soapbox is outright ignored. The jurybox is useless as long as checks-and-balances take a backseat to party politics. Breaking out the ammobox doesn't seem realistic when the vast majority of this country is content to cede their civil liberties as long as they have their iPods and the illusion of security from terrorists.
Obama will say "green" a lot in the next few weeks, babble about "corporations", promise "free" healthcare and you'll be right back in line.
Nice attempt at a troll, but none of those things are the reason why I started supporting him in the first place.
I started supporting him because he seemed to "get it". He wanted to end the war on science. He spoke of following the Constitution. He seemed geninuely informed about tech issues (including network neutrality). He talked about a new kind of politics where we can disagree without being disagreeable.
Now he has sold out a fundamental principle because it would probably have been too hard to defend it. He has exposed himself as the standard issue politician, willing to say anything to get elected and willing to retreat from past promises when they become inconvenient.
I may still vote for him but he has lost my support beyond that. Come to think of it, I live in a fairly blue state -- so I don't even feel an obligation to vote for him as the "lessor of two evils".
Guess I'll start reading up about Nader and Barr. I don't particularly like Nader and Barr scares the hell out of me but at this point in time I'm almost beyond caring. The bigger slap in the face is the fact that the person who opposed Obama actually had the balls to vote against this.
Whatever happens now I feel like I owe HRC supporters a big fat apology.
Lord knows I'm no defender of Bush, but it seems pretty clear that, despite his obvious un-smoothness with words (a trait many intelligent Slashdot posters certainly share), he clearly has a lot more of the Evil than of the Stupid.
I disagree. I think he has more of the stupid and Dick Cheney is the "evil" behind this administration. Anyone remember the GWB that spoke against nation-building and in favor of a "humble" foreign policy? How long did that last again?
Fuck them all. Democrats and Republicans.
Is it still a change you can believe in?
Nope, I'm pretty fucking bitter right now.
Indeed. The Republicans argue that FISA is critical to national security -- but the President says he'll veto it without telecom immunity attached. So what do the Democrats do? Pass it without immunity and dare him to veto it? No! They cave and give him most of what he wanted.
This party is fucking worthless. Here's a novel idea: Pass it without immunity and when GWB vetoes it start running ads pointing out how the Republicans are placing us all in danger by refusing to compromise on a critical national security issue. If FISA is truly that important (I have my doubts but let's assume it is for the sake of the argument) then let's have an honest debate about it.
No, instead they caved. On some level I can understand why Obama did it -- he doesn't want the Republicans beating him over the head with a national-security issue -- but WTF was Pelosi's reasoning? If you believe in party politics it's her job to take the heat off the nominee. Why the hell did she even let this come up?
They are fucking worthless spineless jackasses. What is the goddamn point? Really, what's the fucking point anymore?
Oh god.... then we'll wind up with Presidents too stupid to get out of jury duty ;)
I'm proud to say that the senator that represents me (and that I actually voted for) voted Nay!
All three of my representatives voted nay as well. At least that's something.
I'm extremely dismayed to see Obama's reversal on this issue. I'd really like to hear what his reasoning was. I'm angry enough right now that I'm questioning why I've been supporting him all this time and wondering why I should be using my vacation time to go campaign for him (as I have been planning) when he just reversed himself on a major promise to his supporters? Why the hell should I keep giving him money when I could give it to my own representatives that actually had the backbone to oppose this?
I'll probably take a few days to cool off and then evaluate this situation further. Right now I'm mad as hell about it and if the election was held tomorrow I'd probably be voting for Nader. Hell, a write-in for Hillary even -- she had the balls to vote against it.
This just sucks no matter how you slice it.
Sure glad i'm european
Yes, because regimes that violate civil liberties have never come to power in Europe.....
It was a failure on all levels. I wouldn't try to dispute or deny that. I just don't see how you can call it "getting our ass handed to us" in combination with your idea that civilizations change for the better after they get "stomped on a bit". Vietnam didn't place the United States in any direct danger. The Vietnamese Army wasn't pouring across our borders. Our cities weren't being bombed.
I just think the London Blitz is a much better example of a Western Civilization being "stomped a bit" than Vietnam is. We won most of the battles in Vietnam. We just didn't have the political willpower to win the war. That doesn't make it an asshanding. There was no Dein Bein Phu that American forces lost. The country just got tired of the war and wanted out. Iraq is much the same -- we've won every battle but there really isn't an effective solution that can be imposed by our armed forces.
Incidentally, I think that Iraq will turn out to be a similar boondoggle in the end, accomplishing nothing except pissing away international good will and further alienating the people against the government
I would agree with that assessment. Bush had a blank check of international goodwill after 9/11 and he pissed it away on invading Iraq. That will be his legacy.
The question though, is the Iranian program truly civilian in nature?
They claim it is. Most Western intelligence agencies think otherwise though.
At some point, nations are going to start needing nuclear power - we need a framework to give them the ability to have a strategically sound nuclear power infrastructure, without the fear of weapons proliferation
I agree. And I'm a huge advocate for nuclear power. The sad thing is that we already have the technology to make reactors that are useless for proliferation -- we just need to do a better job of promoting that technology and making it available. We could also have a framework to provide enriched uranium to them -- in fact I believe this was one of the proposals that we (or Europe?) offered to Iran some time ago.
but how do you make something like that palatable to arguably third-world tin-pot dictators?
You don't. You hope that they lose power before they obtain a nuclear weapon because going to war with them is only going to strengthen their hand domestically and give them an external enemy to blame for all of their problems. There's actually a lot to be optimistic about in Iran right now -- they had a moderate Government going for awhile until the Mullah's forbade them from running again. The people there do want change -- which is why I earnestly hope we can resolve this issue without going to war. If we start dropping bombs on them that movement is going to be silenced pretty rapidly.
We haven't made space exploration a priority for the last, ya know, 40 years.
If the article I referenced earlier (about a metals shortage) has any validity whatsoever we may see a commercial interest in space exploration. Space exploration backed by commercial interests is the only thing that's going to make it affordable in the end -- commerce was the major driving factor behind European colonization of the New World after all.
Relative to the energy density of fuels that can safely and economically be manufactured in the necessary quantities using current techniques
Fixed that for you.
Actually I didn't completely miss it I just opted not to respond to it twice.
Here is my response addressing MAD -- which I think is what you were referring to. I'd rather live under MAD between nation-states then the constant threat of being blown up every time I go to work, the movies or out for pizza.
Did I try to hand-wave ("These are not the drones you are looking for...") away the requirements as trivial? All I said was that the problem of getting to Mars is not one that can't be overcome with our existing understanding of the laws of physics.
The energy involved in exiting a gravity well is 'ludicrous'
Ludicrous compared to what? Our current level of technological understanding? The energy involved in making a 747 stay aloft would probably seem pretty ludicrous to someone born at the turn of the 20th century. The energy output of a modern nuclear power plant would seem ludicrous to Edison or Westinghouse. The energy output of a nuclear weapon would seem ludicrous to anyone born before Einstein's theory of relativity was introduced.
There are huge challenges that we are going to need to overcome in the next century. Competition for resources and prestige will drive investments into the space program. Technical challenges will be identified and eventually overcome. All of this is achievable with known or projected technologies and our current understanding of the universe.
At the end of the day I do have optimism in the human race.
Sailing across the ocean was impractical 800 years ago. 80 years ago splitting the atom was impractical. 40-50 years ago it was impractical to have a powerful computer that didn't occupy an entire room. 20-30 years ago it was impractical to build a cellular network that could support tens of millions of users.
I just don't buy into this pessimism. There are many challenges that we will have to overcome -- but since when has that stopped us from attempting something?
If your argument is that we should abolish SSA then you might have a point. Eventually somebody will wind up paying into the system but not getting anything out of it.
I wasn't engaging in that type of discussion though. I was responding to the GP calling boomers "selfish bastards". That statement borders on flamebait to me -- someone is "selfish" for expecting a payout from a system that they've been putting money into for the last 30-40 years?
because I'm not going to get a single dime back out of it when I try to "retire" in 2047
Correction: You won't get as much as you are currently promised assuming no other action is taken between now and then. SSA has changed before -- raised payroll taxes, increased retirement ages, etc, etc. Assuming that you are going to get nothing out of it makes about as much sense as completely relying on it for all of your retirement planning.
However, the US has only ever really gotten its ass handed to it in Viet Nam and we're still in denial about that
Vietnam wasn't getting our 'ass handed' to us. At no point in the Vietnam War was the security of the mainland United States or that of it's citizens in any real danger. An "asshanding" to me would be something along the lines of The Blitz.
I would still agree with this statement though:
The only bright spot is that civilizations seem to change for the better after they get stomped a bit
MAD seems to work on nation-states -- even batshit crazy ones. Nazi Germany was deterred from using chemical weapons due to fears of massive Allied retaliation. They didn't even use them towards the end as the Red Army was encircling Berlin.
I've never understood why people think we can't deter Iran. There are other reasons to stop them from getting a nuclear bomb (allowing the NPT to collapse would have far reaching consequences beyond the Middle East) but this idea that Mullah's somehow aren't going to be moved by the prospect of their cities disappearing into clouds of nuclear fire strains creditability.
There's never been a 100 megaton H-bomb. The Russians tested a design that was supposedly capable of 100 megatons but it was mainly a propaganda stunt (it was actually tested at around 50 megatons). Such weapons are too large to be practical and so inefficient that they aren't worthwhile to use even if you have a delivery system that lug them around.
Most of the acrimony in our relationship with Russia is frankly America's fault.
That's funny, I kind of thought the guy who was busy arresting and/or poisoning political opponents kind of had something to do with it too.
Or was it the United States that contaminated part of a European capital with radioactive materials in a successful effort to murder a domestic political opponent?
There will be no Mars colony if we don't figure out something better than a big explosion. This makes it very likely that there will be no Mars colony.
We already have. Granted, we need to make the technology practical for real-world deployments but it's not as if this isn't a problem that can't be solved within the laws of physics as we currently understand them.
I could understand your pessimism if you were talking about a colony out near Alpha Centauri but Mars? You really don't think we can figure out the propulsion problem? You don't think we're going to have motivation to solve this problem?
Somewhere between 2015-2020, the boomers are going to going to be demanding their Social Security checks in record numbers. And, when those selfish bastards
Umm, whatever your other opinions about Federal spending/NASA it seems kind of stupid to call the boomers "selfish bastards" for wanting money out of SSA. It's not like they've paid Social Security Taxes for the last 30-40 years or anything.....
Only China will probably win this time
China is not this all powerful colossus that some people seem to think she is. They have serious problems that they need to overcome:
1) Their cities that are so polluted the air is barely breathable
2) The rural poverty that they still haven't managed to overcome
3) The fact that they are just as dependent on foreign energy sources as we are and making themselves more so with each passing year. We might even be in a better position than they are here too -- we have access to oil from friendly nations (Canada) and more domestic resources (the Gulf of Mexico) than they do. We also aren't investing in bringing millions of new carbon powered automobiles onto the road each year either.
4) The fact that within a generation they are going to have 200,000,000 - 250,000,000 more males than females (something completely without precedent in human history) as a result of the one-child policy.
It would be a huge mistake to underestimate them or the problems that we ourselves need to overcome but I'm growing weary of hearing people say that they are going to dominate or somehow beat us in the 21st century. They are no doubt going to compete with us -- but I'm optimistic that we'll hold our own. Western Civilization didn't fold the last time it was challenged -- it successfully beat a Great Depression and powerful directorships that aimed to slice up the World -- why assume it will this time?