You indicated that it was "my" propaganda that "hasn't changed." The link goes to a course listing and part of a FAQ and a US military site for a school serving international students, not a "sales pitch." That doesn't really count as "mine," I don't "own" the US military, and I don't own those documents.
I don't think that anyone is calling for "abolishing regulations blindly," that is a straw man. In the case of Net Neutrality the ratio of pros to cons is definitely in the eyes of the beholder.
Here is a simple point: when the government in pursuit of a policy goal misuses its regulatory power to force bad economic decisions on banks you can create your own disasters where none would otherwise have occurred. The US government effectively coerced banks to make bad lending decisions, which created bad mortgages. What do you do with bad mortgages? Try to spread the risk so nobody takes too big of a bath. Unfortunately with too many bad mortgages that is difficult or impossible. What is even more appalling is when a major political party makes it a policy to block reform, openly cheers it during a state of the union address, and then uses the ensuing disaster to force bad legislation to gum up the economy and throttle job and business creation.
You would be far more successful at explaining the "bleeding obvious" if you didn't habitually ignore the bloody key facts of the matter.
Bernie. He seems to be the only one with the genuine goal of improving the country. Everyone else seems to be more interested in the power, money, prestige, money, and money that come with a successful campaign.
And what is your... "basis"... for that claim? Your statement seems to be nonsense to me unless the only way you think the US could be improved would be to turn it into a "workers paradise" as various socialist countries were styled in previous decades. I assume you are aware that "workers paradise" should be understood as being ironic.
Excessive regulation can and does hurt the little guy. I expect that isn't something you've really looked into or thought much about.
Regulations can serve as a barrier to entry to both individuals and businesses. It isn't unknown for large companies to lobby or otherwise influence the nature of regulations to make it more difficult for small companies to form, or challenge them.
Another unintended consequence is the stifling of entrepreneurship. Regulations can create barriers to people interested in selling goods or services or starting a small business. For example, 17 states require an individual to earn a license to do hair braiding. To obtain a license in Pennsylvania, you have to train for 300 hours, pass a practical and theoretical exam and then pay a fee. Barriers such as these give consumers fewer choices, and with fewer practitioners offering their services in a particular field, customers may face higher prices.
But red tape in America is no laughing matter. The problem is not the rules that are self-evidently absurd. It is the ones that sound reasonable on their own but impose a huge burden collectively. America is meant to be the home of laissez-faire. Unlike Europeans, whose lives have long been circumscribed by meddling governments and diktats from Brussels, Americans are supposed to be free to choose, for better or for worse. Yet for some time America has been straying from this ideal.
Consider the Dodd-Frank law of 2010. Its aim was noble: to prevent another financial crisis. Its strategy was sensible, too: improve transparency, stop banks from taking excessive risks, prevent abusive financial practices and end âoetoo big to failâ by authorising regulators to seize any big, tottering financial firm and wind it down. This newspaper supported these goals at the time, and we still do. But Dodd-Frank is far too complex, and becoming more so. At 848 pages, it is 23 times longer than Glass-Steagall, the reform that followed the Wall Street crash of 1929. Worse, every other page demands that regulators fill in further detail. Some of these clarifications are hundreds of pages long. Just one bit, the âoeVolcker ruleâ, which aims to curb risky proprietary trading by banks, includes 383 questions that break down into 1,420 subquestions. . ..
Dodd-Frank is part of a wider trend. Governments of both parties keep adding stacks of rules, few of which are ever rescinded. Republicans write rules to thwart terrorists, which make flying in America an ordeal and prompt legions of brainy migrants to move to Canada instead. Democrats write rules to expand the welfare state. Barack Obama's health-care reform of 2010 had many virtues, especially its attempt to make health insurance universal. But it does little to reduce the system's staggering and increasing complexity. Every hour spent treating a patient in America creates at least 30 minutes of paperwork, and often a whole hour. Next year the number of federally mandated categories of illness and injury for which hospitals may claim reimbursement will rise from 18,000 to 140,000. There are nine codes relating to injuries caused by parrots, and three relating to burns from flaming water-skis.
Two forces make American laws too complex. One is hubris. Many lawmakers seem to believe that they can lay down rules to govern every eventuality. Examples range from the merely annoying (eg, a proposed code for nurseries in Colorado that specifies how many crayons each box must contain) to the delusional (eg, the conceit of Dodd-Frank that you can anticipate and ban every nasty trick financiers will dream up in the future). Far from preventing abuses, complexity creates loopholes that the
"the Presidential hopeful states the new law is necessary because the FCC's "burdensome" net neutrality rules are destroying innovation, diversity, and network investment."
Strict Net neutrality legislation would limit the terms, conditions, and potentially prices set by broadband Internet service providers. This could restrict their ability to use innovative network management technology, provide appropriate levels of quality of service, and deliver new features and services to meet evolving consumer needs.
Cisco believes that allowing the development of differentiated broadband products, with different service and content offerings, will enhance the broadband market for consumers.
Net Neutrality is a solution in search of a problem. The reader has probably not encountered much difficulty accessing even the smallest web sites. Big sites that deliver huge amounts of multimedia content with blistering speed pay extra for their performance, but this happily leaves ISPs with plenty of lower-cost extra bandwidth to sell. Net Neutrality would be movement, at gunpoint, away from efficient Internet capitalism, and into dreary online socialism. Imagine what would happen to Internet traffic if ISPs were required to treat obscure cat blogs the same way they handle Fox News, CNN and Netflix.
Net Neutrality would foul things up on the user end of the Internet experience, too. Most basic Internet services have some sort of usage cap, beyond which performance is automatically slowed down. The caps are very high, so average users are perfectly happy with this arrangement. Even cell phone users, with more aggressive usage caps than household cable or DSL access, rarely encounter their service limits. Those who desire more bandwidthâ"most commonly for downloading large amounts of multimedia content, like high-definition moviesâ"can pay extra to raise or remove their usage limits.
This kind of multi-tiered service is the reason cheaper, "lower-tiered" service exists at all. It would be silly to charge the same rate to an average home user who fiddles with email and Facebook for a couple of hours each day, versus a movie fanatic who wants to download a hundred high-def movies a month.
At worst, Net Neutrality would "redistribute" bandwidth, so that network hogs have no reason not to download everything in creation, at all hours. Meanwhile, those average users would be reduced to hammering their keyboards in frustration, and wondering why even simple everyday websites took several minutes to load. The past would become a bygone age of wonders.
Net Neutrality waivers
As always, vast power would accrue to those who control the "redistribution" of Internet bandwidth. It wouldn't be long before the first Net Neutrality waivers appeared, the same way ObamaCare is riddled with special exemptions for the politically connected. Like so much else in our centrally planned economy, Internet access would become a boon granted by politicians, rather than a commodity sold by businesses.
The proponents of Net Neutrality sell their agenda by inverting the language of freedom, warning darkly of evil ISPs "blocking" content from website proprietors if they don't pay a ransom. This is true in precisely the same sense that motorists who drive a Chevy Volt are "blocked' from driving as fast as a Porsche can. Net Neutrality "solves" this "problem" by outlawing Porsches . . . and spending taxpayer money on an army of regulators to ensure that every car dealership sells nothing but Volts.
Net Neutrality shares many attributes of the Left's other favored causes. It's steeped in anti-capitalist rhetoric, and d
Just as any school cannot guarantee that some of their students will not someday commit crimes, neither can we. We provide our students with the training that emphasizes their role in serving a democratic society. They learn what it means to “protect and serve.” They learn the moral and ethical reasons for doing what is right and just in their duties, and they learn the practical benefit—the support of their people.
We can guarantee that all instruction will be conducted in accordance with U.S. law, doctrine and policy. The institute instructs its students within the context of the democratic principles set forth in the Charter of the Organization of American States and supporting agreements, while fostering mutual knowledge, confidence and cooperation among the participating nations and promoting democratic values, respect for human rights, and knowledge and understanding of U. S. customs and traditions. The operation and curriculum of this institute are under the independent oversight of the Board of Visitors that includes members of the U. S. Congress, representatives from the State Department, Department of Defense, along with civilians from academia, religious and human rights groups and nongovernmental organizations. WHINSEC maintains the highest academic standards, as shown by its accreditation from the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, as well as by the recognition of the American Council on Education, which evaluates its courses for their academic value to students seeking degrees in civilian educational institutions.
. . . and we seek to tear down vestigial confederate monuments. Perhaps we should, given that they have become largely symbolic of slavery alone for many people.
There are few people seeking that, and it is just more politically correct cultural destruction. That is a problem with teachers and curriculum informed by the fringe Left politics in schools of education. They are also doing a great disservice to the Founders.
The impulse to shout down speakers on campus and punish students for expressing disfavored views is little different.
I'll take that as an indicator of how informed you are on the subject. If you were either well informed to persuaded to hold a well informed position it would be a fast clap. Unfortunately on Slashdot people that are well informed on some topics are rare, and people that change their minds based on evidence are almost a statistical oddity. Despite the claim that people on Slashdot respect STEM, and you would think by extension such niceties as "evidence" and "argument based on facts", it is in fact much more common for people to dig in their opposition in face of the facts, in opposition to the truth on various topics. This subject touches on several of those opinion vectors. So . . . how deep are you?
I am not entirely convinced that those capsules or the yogurt survives the acids in the stomach.
I'm pretty sure I've seen references to at least one study that showed unique organisms introduced by some probiotic formulation (kefir?) transited the entire digestive tract.
I think your reservations about "poop banks" are well founded which is why transplants have tended to come from close relatives.
Handing everything over to Wikileaks directly would have been an unmitigated disaster. Doing that would have aided freedom-haters even more than this debacle already has.
Do you make suggestions like this about your new homeland?
Why don't you name some of the people that went directly to Congress? Off the top of my head I can think of maybe one, and it is acknowledged in his case he was mistreated, but that isn't enough to make a rule, is it? It is also not so simple in that case as I recall the media was involved at points.
You're probably thinking of people that went to the media, and yes, that will end badly in many cases.
Yep. He was operating as a member of the enemy in an armed conflict. No trial required.
It is indeed perfectly legitimate for the executive branch to kill citizen in certain circumstances. This is one of them. For prior art see the Civil War, WW1, WW2. You will find US citizens fighting with enemy forces in each of them. When possible they were either killed or captured, the same as anyone else fighting with the enemy.
Yes indeed, the executive branch can decide to kill people, American citizens, serving with the enemy in armed conflict.
What al-Awlaki did is completely relevant. Going to fight with the enemy makes you part of the enemy. It is simple.
The executive branch can use deadly force to enforce the law of the land, to suppress riot or rebellion, and to defend the US and its Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC. The use of deadly force means you may be killed. If you don't want that, either don't go to fight with the enemy, or surrender. That's it. This is an executive function, no judicial action required. As a citizen you have no right to join the enemy to fight against the United States that grants you some sort of privilege.
You may not like this, but it is pretty clear as a legal matter.
Over the last several years there have been a lot of interesting results come in regarding the microbiome in the gut and the overall effect that has on health and metabolism. Although fecal transplants have been shown to effect the gut flora, it will be interesting to see more investigation of probiotics and the extent to which they genuinely contribute to a healthy gut, and what parameters there are to that.
The innovative features of the iAPX 432 were individually detrimental to good performance. Combined together, it ran slower than contemporary conventional microprocessor designs such as the Motorola 68010 and Intel 80286. One problem was that the two-chip implementation of the GDP limited it to the speed of the motherboard's electrical wiring. A larger issue was the capability architecture needed large associative caches to run efficiently, but the chips had no room left for that. The instruction set also used bit-aligned variable-length instructions (as opposed to the byte or word-aligned semi-fixed formats used in the majority of computer designs). Instruction decoding was much more complex than in other designs. In addition, the BIU was designed to support fault-tolerant systems, and in doing so up to 40% of the bus time was held up in wait states.
It's hard to take your statement seriously when you don't acknowledge the serious legal issues he faces.
It is a pity he didn't go to Congress, that would have been no-harm, no-foul, and it will take Congress to address much of his concerns. I could have backed that.
Slashdot Mirror
You indicated that it was "my" propaganda that "hasn't changed." The link goes to a course listing and part of a FAQ and a US military site for a school serving international students, not a "sales pitch." That doesn't really count as "mine," I don't "own" the US military, and I don't own those documents.
I don't think that anyone is calling for "abolishing regulations blindly," that is a straw man. In the case of Net Neutrality the ratio of pros to cons is definitely in the eyes of the beholder.
Here is a simple point: when the government in pursuit of a policy goal misuses its regulatory power to force bad economic decisions on banks you can create your own disasters where none would otherwise have occurred. The US government effectively coerced banks to make bad lending decisions, which created bad mortgages. What do you do with bad mortgages? Try to spread the risk so nobody takes too big of a bath. Unfortunately with too many bad mortgages that is difficult or impossible. What is even more appalling is when a major political party makes it a policy to block reform, openly cheers it during a state of the union address, and then uses the ensuing disaster to force bad legislation to gum up the economy and throttle job and business creation.
You would be far more successful at explaining the "bleeding obvious" if you didn't habitually ignore the bloody key facts of the matter.
Bernie. He seems to be the only one with the genuine goal of improving the country. Everyone else seems to be more interested in the power, money, prestige, money, and money that come with a successful campaign.
And what is your ... "basis"... for that claim? Your statement seems to be nonsense to me unless the only way you think the US could be improved would be to turn it into a "workers paradise" as various socialist countries were styled in previous decades. I assume you are aware that "workers paradise" should be understood as being ironic.
Excessive regulation can and does hurt the little guy. I expect that isn't something you've really looked into or thought much about.
Regulations can serve as a barrier to entry to both individuals and businesses. It isn't unknown for large companies to lobby or otherwise influence the nature of regulations to make it more difficult for small companies to form, or challenge them.
Some food for thought:
An Economy Buried by Regulations
Another unintended consequence is the stifling of entrepreneurship. Regulations can create barriers to people interested in selling goods or services or starting a small business. For example, 17 states require an individual to earn a license to do hair braiding. To obtain a license in Pennsylvania, you have to train for 300 hours, pass a practical and theoretical exam and then pay a fee. Barriers such as these give consumers fewer choices, and with fewer practitioners offering their services in a particular field, customers may face higher prices.
Over-regulated America
But red tape in America is no laughing matter. The problem is not the rules that are self-evidently absurd. It is the ones that sound reasonable on their own but impose a huge burden collectively. America is meant to be the home of laissez-faire. Unlike Europeans, whose lives have long been circumscribed by meddling governments and diktats from Brussels, Americans are supposed to be free to choose, for better or for worse. Yet for some time America has been straying from this ideal.
Consider the Dodd-Frank law of 2010. Its aim was noble: to prevent another financial crisis. Its strategy was sensible, too: improve transparency, stop banks from taking excessive risks, prevent abusive financial practices and end âoetoo big to failâ by authorising regulators to seize any big, tottering financial firm and wind it down. This newspaper supported these goals at the time, and we still do. But Dodd-Frank is far too complex, and becoming more so. At 848 pages, it is 23 times longer than Glass-Steagall, the reform that followed the Wall Street crash of 1929. Worse, every other page demands that regulators fill in further detail. Some of these clarifications are hundreds of pages long. Just one bit, the âoeVolcker ruleâ, which aims to curb risky proprietary trading by banks, includes 383 questions that break down into 1,420 subquestions. . . .
Dodd-Frank is part of a wider trend. Governments of both parties keep adding stacks of rules, few of which are ever rescinded. Republicans write rules to thwart terrorists, which make flying in America an ordeal and prompt legions of brainy migrants to move to Canada instead. Democrats write rules to expand the welfare state. Barack Obama's health-care reform of 2010 had many virtues, especially its attempt to make health insurance universal. But it does little to reduce the system's staggering and increasing complexity. Every hour spent treating a patient in America creates at least 30 minutes of paperwork, and often a whole hour. Next year the number of federally mandated categories of illness and injury for which hospitals may claim reimbursement will rise from 18,000 to 140,000. There are nine codes relating to injuries caused by parrots, and three relating to burns from flaming water-skis.
Two forces make American laws too complex. One is hubris. Many lawmakers seem to believe that they can lay down rules to govern every eventuality. Examples range from the merely annoying (eg, a proposed code for nurseries in Colorado that specifies how many crayons each box must contain) to the delusional (eg, the conceit of Dodd-Frank that you can anticipate and ban every nasty trick financiers will dream up in the future). Far from preventing abuses, complexity creates loopholes that the
"the Presidential hopeful states the new law is necessary because the FCC's "burdensome" net neutrality rules are destroying innovation, diversity, and network investment."
Examples plz
There seem to be some problems.
Net Neutrality - Issues
Strict Net neutrality legislation would limit the terms, conditions, and potentially prices set by broadband Internet service providers. This could restrict their ability to use innovative network management technology, provide appropriate levels of quality of service, and deliver new features and services to meet evolving consumer needs.
Cisco believes that allowing the development of differentiated broadband products, with different service and content offerings, will enhance the broadband market for consumers.
Net neutrality for dummies
Net Neutrality is a solution in search of a problem. The reader has probably not encountered much difficulty accessing even the smallest web sites. Big sites that deliver huge amounts of multimedia content with blistering speed pay extra for their performance, but this happily leaves ISPs with plenty of lower-cost extra bandwidth to sell. Net Neutrality would be movement, at gunpoint, away from efficient Internet capitalism, and into dreary online socialism. Imagine what would happen to Internet traffic if ISPs were required to treat obscure cat blogs the same way they handle Fox News, CNN and Netflix.
Net Neutrality would foul things up on the user end of the Internet experience, too. Most basic Internet services have some sort of usage cap, beyond which performance is automatically slowed down. The caps are very high, so average users are perfectly happy with this arrangement. Even cell phone users, with more aggressive usage caps than household cable or DSL access, rarely encounter their service limits. Those who desire more bandwidthâ"most commonly for downloading large amounts of multimedia content, like high-definition moviesâ"can pay extra to raise or remove their usage limits.
This kind of multi-tiered service is the reason cheaper, "lower-tiered" service exists at all. It would be silly to charge the same rate to an average home user who fiddles with email and Facebook for a couple of hours each day, versus a movie fanatic who wants to download a hundred high-def movies a month.
At worst, Net Neutrality would "redistribute" bandwidth, so that network hogs have no reason not to download everything in creation, at all hours. Meanwhile, those average users would be reduced to hammering their keyboards in frustration, and wondering why even simple everyday websites took several minutes to load. The past would become a bygone age of wonders.
Net Neutrality waivers
As always, vast power would accrue to those who control the "redistribution" of Internet bandwidth. It wouldn't be long before the first Net Neutrality waivers appeared, the same way ObamaCare is riddled with special exemptions for the politically connected. Like so much else in our centrally planned economy, Internet access would become a boon granted by politicians, rather than a commodity sold by businesses.
The proponents of Net Neutrality sell their agenda by inverting the language of freedom, warning darkly of evil ISPs "blocking" content from website proprietors if they don't pay a ransom. This is true in precisely the same sense that motorists who drive a Chevy Volt are "blocked' from driving as fast as a Porsche can. Net Neutrality "solves" this "problem" by outlawing Porsches . . . and spending taxpayer money on an army of regulators to ensure that every car dealership sells nothing but Volts.
Net Neutrality shares many attributes of the Left's other favored causes. It's steeped in anti-capitalist rhetoric, and d
Rubio & Cruz's supporters don't give a damn about examples - they'll believe whatever they're fed.
Normal rationality goes out the window (even more than usual) when Republicans are involved.
Wow! Talk about irony!
And which "propaganda" is that?
Both the 1960s and 1980s are long past.
You're mistaken, it isn't a "genocidal" anything.
Take a look, maybe you can tell me where the (imaginary) "genocidal" part comes in?
Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation
Hmmm ....
How can you ensure students graduating from your institute will not commit crimes against their people?
Just as any school cannot guarantee that some of their students will not someday commit crimes, neither can we. We provide our students with the training that emphasizes their role in serving a democratic society. They learn what it means to “protect and serve.” They learn the moral and ethical reasons for doing what is right and just in their duties, and they learn the practical benefit—the support of their people.
We can guarantee that all instruction will be conducted in accordance with U.S. law, doctrine and policy. The institute instructs its students within the context of the democratic principles set forth in the Charter of the Organization of American States and supporting agreements, while fostering mutual knowledge, confidence and cooperation among the participating nations and promoting democratic values, respect for human rights, and knowledge and understanding of U. S. customs and traditions. The operation and curriculum of this institute are under the independent oversight of the Board of Visitors that includes members of the U. S. Congress, representatives from the State Department, Department of Defense, along with civilians from academia, religious and human rights groups and nongovernmental organizations. WHINSEC maintains the highest academic standards, as shown by its accreditation from the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, as well as by the recognition of the American Council on Education, which evaluates its courses for their academic value to students seeking degrees in civilian educational institutions.
. . . and we seek to tear down vestigial confederate monuments. Perhaps we should, given that they have become largely symbolic of slavery alone for many people.
There are few people seeking that, and it is just more politically correct cultural destruction. That is a problem with teachers and curriculum informed by the fringe Left politics in schools of education. They are also doing a great disservice to the Founders.
The impulse to shout down speakers on campus and punish students for expressing disfavored views is little different.
That is a load of activist crap, piled high, fresh and fragrant.
It's going to take some work.
I'll take that as an indicator of how informed you are on the subject. If you were either well informed to persuaded to hold a well informed position it would be a fast clap. Unfortunately on Slashdot people that are well informed on some topics are rare, and people that change their minds based on evidence are almost a statistical oddity. Despite the claim that people on Slashdot respect STEM, and you would think by extension such niceties as "evidence" and "argument based on facts", it is in fact much more common for people to dig in their opposition in face of the facts, in opposition to the truth on various topics. This subject touches on several of those opinion vectors. So . . . how deep are you?
I am not entirely convinced that those capsules or the yogurt survives the acids in the stomach.
I'm pretty sure I've seen references to at least one study that showed unique organisms introduced by some probiotic formulation (kefir?) transited the entire digestive tract.
I think your reservations about "poop banks" are well founded which is why transplants have tended to come from close relatives.
...when the government had him killed in custody.
That puts you into nutter territory. No way that is going to happen.
I suppose as long as you include imaginary offenses as counting.
Congress can protect whom it wants.
Handing everything over to Wikileaks directly would have been an unmitigated disaster. Doing that would have aided freedom-haters even more than this debacle already has.
Do you make suggestions like this about your new homeland?
Why don't you name some of the people that went directly to Congress? Off the top of my head I can think of maybe one, and it is acknowledged in his case he was mistreated, but that isn't enough to make a rule, is it? It is also not so simple in that case as I recall the media was involved at points.
You're probably thinking of people that went to the media, and yes, that will end badly in many cases.
No trail required. It was an act of war, not law enforcement.
Yep. He was operating as a member of the enemy in an armed conflict. No trial required.
It is indeed perfectly legitimate for the executive branch to kill citizen in certain circumstances. This is one of them. For prior art see the Civil War, WW1, WW2. You will find US citizens fighting with enemy forces in each of them. When possible they were either killed or captured, the same as anyone else fighting with the enemy.
Yes indeed, the executive branch can decide to kill people, American citizens, serving with the enemy in armed conflict.
What al-Awlaki did is completely relevant. Going to fight with the enemy makes you part of the enemy. It is simple.
The executive branch can use deadly force to enforce the law of the land, to suppress riot or rebellion, and to defend the US and its Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC. The use of deadly force means you may be killed. If you don't want that, either don't go to fight with the enemy, or surrender. That's it. This is an executive function, no judicial action required. As a citizen you have no right to join the enemy to fight against the United States that grants you some sort of privilege.
You may not like this, but it is pretty clear as a legal matter.
Over the last several years there have been a lot of interesting results come in regarding the microbiome in the gut and the overall effect that has on health and metabolism. Although fecal transplants have been shown to effect the gut flora, it will be interesting to see more investigation of probiotics and the extent to which they genuinely contribute to a healthy gut, and what parameters there are to that.
Yep - the B1700 did this in the 1970s. Been there, done that... (I was a CPU engineer on one of them.)
So did the i432 a few year later.
Intel iAPX 432
The innovative features of the iAPX 432 were individually detrimental to good performance. Combined together, it ran slower than contemporary conventional microprocessor designs such as the Motorola 68010 and Intel 80286. One problem was that the two-chip implementation of the GDP limited it to the speed of the motherboard's electrical wiring. A larger issue was the capability architecture needed large associative caches to run efficiently, but the chips had no room left for that. The instruction set also used bit-aligned variable-length instructions (as opposed to the byte or word-aligned semi-fixed formats used in the majority of computer designs). Instruction decoding was much more complex than in other designs. In addition, the BIU was designed to support fault-tolerant systems, and in doing so up to 40% of the bus time was held up in wait states.
As I recall his son had recently pledged allegiance to al Qaida's leadership and was killed in the company of another al Qaida member.
It's hard to take your statement seriously when you don't acknowledge the serious legal issues he faces.
It is a pity he didn't go to Congress, that would have been no-harm, no-foul, and it will take Congress to address much of his concerns. I could have backed that.
I wonder who is paying Snowden's bills?
A fair question. This might suggest where to check for at least a few of the receipts. "Interesting" timeline.