I think that explains why it was OK. This would be similar to a mandate that anyone traveling outside the US purchase traveler's insurance. However insurance mandates discussed in recent years have not been limited to international behaviors.
Others argue that the Constitution's framers could not possibly have envisioned a congressional power to force purchases. However, in 1790, the first Congress, which was packed with framers, required all ship owners to provide medical insurance for seamen; in 1798, Congress also required seamen to buy hospital insurance for themselves. In 1792, Congress enacted a law mandating that all able-bodied citizens obtain a firearm. This history negates any claim that forcing the purchase of insurance or other products is unprecedented or contrary to any possible intention of the framers.
Interesting. Did this include seamen who only sailed the ocean within their own state, or did it apply only to seamen who sailed the ocean between states and/or between the US and other countries?
Was requirement for the purchase of firearms a mandate to promote the firearms business or was it perhaps related to the national defense?
The Gingrich Revolution is too far to the left for the current House of Representatives.
We can only hope. However they're going way to the left of Gingrich with this proposal - at least in terms of it becoming easier for elites to make laws "for the good of the people" without having to worry about what the people actually think. However it is not quite as far to the left as the typical left-wing tactic of using the courts to enact policies it can't get the public to support.
90 days for DUI sounds good to me, assuming it wasn't the first offense. What annoys me, and is relevant to the Ravi-Clementi case, is when someone gets sent to jail for 20 years or life because they're DUI lead to an accident in which someone died.
The crime is DUI because DUI creates a situation where an accident is likely to occur. Let me repeat - "an accident is likely to occur". If an accident does occur, it is still an accident. The driver deliberately decided to DUI, but the driver did not deliberately decide to cause an accident or to kill someone.
It is insane that one person can DUI and get a ticket while another driver does the same thing and gets 20 years to life. Better that all DUI, regardless of the luck of the driver, is punished with a memorable but not life-ending jail term on the second offense than to have the judge make a life-ending decision that is just as random as the accident that resulted from the DUI.
It's cheaper to share a room. It usually provides each new student with an emotional support system right from the start (most people don't secretly tape their roommate and instead do their best to remain friendly). Having trouble adjusting? - you can talk to your roommate in the evening (who may be having the same issues). Also there is the health support safety issue. If you come down with a flu that keeps you in bed for a few days there is someone who will bring you food and drink and check your temperature. If you get really sick - faint on the floor in the middle of the night, there is someone who will find you within a few hours and get medical attention for you.
There are a lot of good reasons for having roommates for college freshman.
You seem to be living in the fantasy world that everyone is strong and should be able to take punishment.
People are weak. They don't know how to cope. But they are still human beings and worthy of being cared for and protected. We should be outraged that this poor gay kid was driven to suicide.
We don't know that the guy was "driven" to suicide. Even if Ravi's actions did contribute to Clementi's decision, Ravi wasn't the only influence and Ravi certainly didn't make the decision to kill.
You're right that we need laws to protect people from hurting each other, but punishments need to be in proportion to the hurt caused, not in proportion to an overreaction by a victim. Suppose some kid you called a "nanny boo boo" back when you and he were 6 kills himself and leaves a note blaming it on your name-calling. Does that mean you need to be punished for his death because he decided to obsess over it? Not everyone has the emotional stability and tools to deal with the difficulties of life and that is sad - but when sentencing someone who hurts others we should be sentencing based on the hurt that would be caused to an average person, not based on the hurt that would be caused to the weakest individual. Otherwise even the slightest misdemeanor has the potential to be a hanging offense.
Ravi is guilty the violation of privacy and should be sentenced as such - for a violation of privacy. The death was 100% Clementi's doing.
On a technical note: Many comments are claiming that Clementy was filmed "having sex". All I've read in news reports, however, is that he was filmed kissing. There is a big difference.
Hopefully the officer did a little more than that. He should have called his office to have someone check up on the legitimacy of the the medical center providing the note, and then call the medical center to verify the note.
If the motorist had been in the process of a crime, the severity of the crime justifies diligence checking of the note and the sophistication of the crime suggests that the time and effort to generate a false note would have been taken.
"evidence of a crime having been committed". In the case the evidence was of a crime about to be committed.
Evidence of a crime means that you see something out of the ordinary that is consistent with a crime. You stop a car and there is bed sheet soaked in blood in the back, and a machete lying next to it. Evidence of a crime? One could argue that it is just evidence the guy had been hunting and hadn't learned the first thing about how to clean and butcher a deer.
You stop a car with two guys dressed in black and notice that next to them are two black ski masks, a hand written note (you can read the part that says "give me all your money"), and some empty bags. Evidence of a crime in progress or about to be committed? The guys where on their way to a rehearsal of a play in which they have the role of bank robbers.
It is possible to be doing everything in a way that would be consistent with what you consider "normal" but that would still give of a strong sign of a crime having been committed or about to be committed.
Given how rare it is for people's cars to give off radiation, and the potential for such radiation to indicate that a catastrophic crime is about to be committed, a police officer would be highly negligent if he didn't stop and investigate such a car.
We get a nested obscurity with Manila folders. How many people of the generation that started using Manila folders as icons every made a folder from abaca or even knew why the folders were called that?
I hate to say Obama's right, but he's right that the Canadian shale oil will be mined and used regardless of what we do (unless we intervene militarily, of course). From an environmental perspective, it is better that the oil be refined in the US where we can have stricter rules on the refining process to limit pollution. From a strategic perspective we should want that oil coming our direction so we don't need to import so much from unfriendly countries and so that we have a secure supply (and one less supply for China). Obama should have approved the Keystone pipeline a long time ago instead of trying to postpone the politically dangerous decision until after the election.
I have concerns about global warming but not being heavily immersed in the science I have to made my judgement largely based on how much I trust the people and the motives of the people on each side. I have to say that the pro-warming side lost a lot of credibility with me when they started trying to slander their opponents with the word "denier' (which was before then usually part of the term "Holocaust denier"). Such behavior suggests they feel they can't win a fair debate and have to resort to name calling.
Unless a corporation is controlling the government, then a corporation generally can't do a thing to abuse your rights. It can't take your land, it can't physically harm you. It can't take your money unless you willingly give it. It can't make you work unless you willingly take a job, and then it can't stop you from quitting and finding a job somewhere else.
Only the government can do these things, and it is you who is proposing to use the government to do these things to the people who form the corporation.
We do need to reform our government. But we shouldn't begin that process by taking away people's rights. We should reform our government by trying to take away its power - by limiting it to its Constitutional roles and by voting for people who promise to reduce spending and corporate welfare (did you vote for McCain, one of the few presidential candidates with the guts to oppose ethanol subsidies?).
Right now the Tea Party is about the only group out there with any momentum that is trying to push these kinds of reforms. No wonder the big corporations that have the government in their pocket hate them so much and use their news media to try to trash their reputation.
Every time I read a science or education related article on slashdot I see a ton of snarky comments about how republicans and conservatives are stupid science haters. Now we have some actuall data and we see that of the bottom five states and districts, three are dominated by liberals. Looking at the map with the article, we see that much maligned Kansas is in one of the upper tiers and that both very liberal and very conservative states are in the high upper tier.
I think it is necessary to point this out. It is time the people who think conservatives are the ones who hate science to look in the mirror.
Google is only a corporation because the government GAVE them a license to incorporate. With any license comes restrictions on what can or can not be done"
While I disagree with the "corporation is a person" argument, I do recognize that a corporation is an assembly of persons who should not be stripped of their consitutional rights simply because they get organized. In fact the US Constitution explicitly guarantees the right to assemble to petition the government.
I think there are a lot of Americans who don't quite understand what real cultural differences are. They think a significant cultural difference is using chopsticks instead of forks. Because they don't understand that cultural differences are real they may think you're being "racist" when you talk about such differences. Those who have experienced real cultural differences and who understand that correlation does not imply causation are able to understand that commenting about culture is not the same as commenting about race - and that criticizing an aspect of a culture (not that you did) is not always the result of bigotry.
Nice way to be racist and narrowminded of the Taiwanese culture.
I'm not sure what race has to do with it. American culture and Taiwanese culture are very different. One thing that can differ greatly between cultures is tolerance for behavior that may make a man appear feminine.
You're right that having a large community of Asian immigrants around would be necessary to keep the business afloat while you try to build up the native American market. Also the Americans will be more willing to try the idea if they have Asian friends who have done it.
As for getting the American men to "effeminize" there are two answers. The first is: don't. Have them wear light make-up or none at all, but still do the studio shots and outdoor shots. And you can skip the air bubbles and clouds and stick to themes Americans are more ready to accept (maybe ad some new ones like cowboy-cowgirl pictures). The second answer is: the guy has agreed to marry the girl and put up with the whole wedding thing already (and to wear a TUX!) - what's the big deal with a few bubbles and clouds for the girl he loves?
I lived in Taiwan for a while. I was told, and it fits with what I've seen, that while children in America are raised on the dream of getting a secure high paying job, children in Taiwan are raised on the dream of owning their own business. I suspect that dream doesn't go away just because they move to America.
Americans are used to the options of 1. always being able to find a job (McDonald's is always hiring) and nearly always a decent job (English is the ticket) and 2. having welfare as an option if they're too lazy or "too good" to take the jobs that are available. Immigrants are often raised in places where those options don't exist and starting your own business is the only way to survive. Starting a business is risky and takes a lot of work. Why do it if you have other options for a secure prosperous future?
An immigrant is likely to see opportunities an American would miss because growing up in another culture they know there is another way to do things. For example, if I were more entrepreneurial, artistic and less risk-averse, I would start a business taking wedding photos like I saw in Taiwan and marketing this service to American women. There is more than one way to do wedding photos but living only in America you might not see it.
America's imperial acquisitions occurred more than 100 years ago. Neither I nor anyone I know was alive at the time. Are you saying that a person cannot criticize behavior if any of their ancestors ever engaged in that behavior?
Who then is able to criticize genocide, or murder, or any other crime? Our juries will be left empty and our seats of our judges vacant!
But more importantly, I wasn't suggesting that we throw stones at China, I was suggesting instead that we try to prevent China from throwing stones at our friends and neighbors! Or are you saying that a descendent of a murder must stand helplessly by while more murders are committed even until he himself is murdered?
So my ancestors did some bad things - or perhaps the countrymen of my ancestors did bad things. That doesn't mean I should abandon my capacity to tell right from wrong.
A lot of Irish (and especially English, e.g. John Cleese, Sharon Osbourne etc) make a living in America by pandering to long held ethnic stereotypes that Americans fully believe in.
It is one thing to laugh at a stereotype; it is quite another to "fully believe in" it. If you really believe that all or even most Americans "fully believe in" those stereotypes, then I suggest that you have made the mistake of fully believing in an incorrect stereotype.
Well yeah. The British were proud of their empire too. So were the Romans. When your empire is humiliated it hurts. That doesn't mean it was right to engage in imperialism in the first place or that you should have a right to keep an empire forever. The Chinese for centuries were fighting with their neighbors and generally winning. How much tribute do you think Korea and other neighbors paid the Qing and other dynasties over the years? Of course China was humiliated when someone stronger came along and did the same things back to them.
Now China is secure in its present borders which, unlike the current borders of most imperial powers, are pretty close to the largest extent of their empire. But for some reason they think they are the only empire in the world that has an inherent right to expand again to the farthest extent of their past empire. What if all imperial powers did that?
So America is perfection? Anything that America ever did must be ok simply because America did it?
Times have changed. Most civilized countries agree that the age of imperialism should be over. Both America and China did acquire large land holdings through violent means. What's is different is that America in recent years has voluntarily relenquished colonies such as the Phillippines and other smaller Pacific islands and people in Puerto Rico speak of independence without fearing for their lives. China on the other hand has said that its most important policy objective is to reconquer land (Taiwan) based on the fact that Taiwan was part of the Chinese Empire back in the 1800s. And more recently China has insisted that most of the islands between the Phillippines and Vietnam also become part of China (they don't have a historical claim, but the area around the islands is thought to have oil).
The difference is that America has an imperial past. China is actively seeking an imperial future.
We could say China has been around 60 years or 2000 years. But in either case, China has has a pretty good track record of not engaging in wars that were not within or adjacent to its borders.
China has a long record of imperialism. It is one of the few empires left that has managed to hold on to most of its imperial conquests and is in fact still saying it wants more.
The only reasons China doesn't have a long track record of conquests far from its borders is that China expansions occurred at a time when long range power projection was more difficult and because the resources China was after could be found nearby.
Prior to the 15th century, every empire (except perhaps the Vikings) could be said to have restrictued it's conquests to areas that were within or adjacent to its borders. Even the Mongols who crossed all of Asia and attacked Europe only did so once Europe became "adjacent to their borders".
China's new trick is to pre-emptively declare everything it wants to attack to be "within its borders" (or to use their terms, "an integral part of China").
you're saying China might annex large swathes of Asia for their resources? Look at a map. They already did.
Their real genius is in how they managed to use European attitudes toward Chinese (they all look and act alike) to let Europeans believe China is a country rather than an empire - and then using that to self-righteously blame other empires for "colonialism" when those empires took over some of China's colonies.
Now they want to recover more of their former colonies - push their empire back to its furthest historical extent and beyond - and they have the gall to claim it is their "internal affairs" and that no other countries have a right to interfere even though China made Britain give up its Hong Kong island colonly (only the New Territories were leased, by international law Hong Kong island was a permanent part of the British empire, not the Chinese empire).
Slashdot Mirror
I think that explains why it was OK. This would be similar to a mandate that anyone traveling outside the US purchase traveler's insurance. However insurance mandates discussed in recent years have not been limited to international behaviors.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1113618 The Irrelevance of the Broccoli Argument against the Insurance Mandate Einer Elhauge, J.D. N Engl J Med 2012; 366:e1January 5, 2012
Others argue that the Constitution's framers could not possibly have envisioned a congressional power to force purchases. However, in 1790, the first Congress, which was packed with framers, required all ship owners to provide medical insurance for seamen; in 1798, Congress also required seamen to buy hospital insurance for themselves. In 1792, Congress enacted a law mandating that all able-bodied citizens obtain a firearm. This history negates any claim that forcing the purchase of insurance or other products is unprecedented or contrary to any possible intention of the framers.
Interesting. Did this include seamen who only sailed the ocean within their own state, or did it apply only to seamen who sailed the ocean between states and/or between the US and other countries?
Was requirement for the purchase of firearms a mandate to promote the firearms business or was it perhaps related to the national defense?
We can only hope. However they're going way to the left of Gingrich with this proposal - at least in terms of it becoming easier for elites to make laws "for the good of the people" without having to worry about what the people actually think. However it is not quite as far to the left as the typical left-wing tactic of using the courts to enact policies it can't get the public to support.
Excellent point.
90 days for DUI sounds good to me, assuming it wasn't the first offense. What annoys me, and is relevant to the Ravi-Clementi case, is when someone gets sent to jail for 20 years or life because they're DUI lead to an accident in which someone died.
The crime is DUI because DUI creates a situation where an accident is likely to occur. Let me repeat - "an accident is likely to occur". If an accident does occur, it is still an accident. The driver deliberately decided to DUI, but the driver did not deliberately decide to cause an accident or to kill someone.
It is insane that one person can DUI and get a ticket while another driver does the same thing and gets 20 years to life. Better that all DUI, regardless of the luck of the driver, is punished with a memorable but not life-ending jail term on the second offense than to have the judge make a life-ending decision that is just as random as the accident that resulted from the DUI.
It's cheaper to share a room. It usually provides each new student with an emotional support system right from the start (most people don't secretly tape their roommate and instead do their best to remain friendly). Having trouble adjusting? - you can talk to your roommate in the evening (who may be having the same issues). Also there is the health support safety issue. If you come down with a flu that keeps you in bed for a few days there is someone who will bring you food and drink and check your temperature. If you get really sick - faint on the floor in the middle of the night, there is someone who will find you within a few hours and get medical attention for you.
There are a lot of good reasons for having roommates for college freshman.
You seem to be living in the fantasy world that everyone is strong and should be able to take punishment.
People are weak. They don't know how to cope. But they are still human beings and worthy of being cared for and protected. We should be outraged that this poor gay kid was driven to suicide.
We don't know that the guy was "driven" to suicide. Even if Ravi's actions did contribute to Clementi's decision, Ravi wasn't the only influence and Ravi certainly didn't make the decision to kill.
You're right that we need laws to protect people from hurting each other, but punishments need to be in proportion to the hurt caused, not in proportion to an overreaction by a victim. Suppose some kid you called a "nanny boo boo" back when you and he were 6 kills himself and leaves a note blaming it on your name-calling. Does that mean you need to be punished for his death because he decided to obsess over it? Not everyone has the emotional stability and tools to deal with the difficulties of life and that is sad - but when sentencing someone who hurts others we should be sentencing based on the hurt that would be caused to an average person, not based on the hurt that would be caused to the weakest individual. Otherwise even the slightest misdemeanor has the potential to be a hanging offense.
Ravi is guilty the violation of privacy and should be sentenced as such - for a violation of privacy. The death was 100% Clementi's doing.
On a technical note: Many comments are claiming that Clementy was filmed "having sex". All I've read in news reports, however, is that he was filmed kissing. There is a big difference.
Hopefully the officer did a little more than that. He should have called his office to have someone check up on the legitimacy of the the medical center providing the note, and then call the medical center to verify the note. If the motorist had been in the process of a crime, the severity of the crime justifies diligence checking of the note and the sophistication of the crime suggests that the time and effort to generate a false note would have been taken.
"evidence of a crime having been committed". In the case the evidence was of a crime about to be committed.
Evidence of a crime means that you see something out of the ordinary that is consistent with a crime. You stop a car and there is bed sheet soaked in blood in the back, and a machete lying next to it. Evidence of a crime? One could argue that it is just evidence the guy had been hunting and hadn't learned the first thing about how to clean and butcher a deer.
You stop a car with two guys dressed in black and notice that next to them are two black ski masks, a hand written note (you can read the part that says "give me all your money"), and some empty bags. Evidence of a crime in progress or about to be committed? The guys where on their way to a rehearsal of a play in which they have the role of bank robbers.
It is possible to be doing everything in a way that would be consistent with what you consider "normal" but that would still give of a strong sign of a crime having been committed or about to be committed.
Given how rare it is for people's cars to give off radiation, and the potential for such radiation to indicate that a catastrophic crime is about to be committed, a police officer would be highly negligent if he didn't stop and investigate such a car.
We get a nested obscurity with Manila folders. How many people of the generation that started using Manila folders as icons every made a folder from abaca or even knew why the folders were called that?
I hate to say Obama's right, but he's right that the Canadian shale oil will be mined and used regardless of what we do (unless we intervene militarily, of course). From an environmental perspective, it is better that the oil be refined in the US where we can have stricter rules on the refining process to limit pollution. From a strategic perspective we should want that oil coming our direction so we don't need to import so much from unfriendly countries and so that we have a secure supply (and one less supply for China). Obama should have approved the Keystone pipeline a long time ago instead of trying to postpone the politically dangerous decision until after the election.
I have concerns about global warming but not being heavily immersed in the science I have to made my judgement largely based on how much I trust the people and the motives of the people on each side. I have to say that the pro-warming side lost a lot of credibility with me when they started trying to slander their opponents with the word "denier' (which was before then usually part of the term "Holocaust denier"). Such behavior suggests they feel they can't win a fair debate and have to resort to name calling.
Unless a corporation is controlling the government, then a corporation generally can't do a thing to abuse your rights. It can't take your land, it can't physically harm you. It can't take your money unless you willingly give it. It can't make you work unless you willingly take a job, and then it can't stop you from quitting and finding a job somewhere else.
Only the government can do these things, and it is you who is proposing to use the government to do these things to the people who form the corporation.
We do need to reform our government. But we shouldn't begin that process by taking away people's rights. We should reform our government by trying to take away its power - by limiting it to its Constitutional roles and by voting for people who promise to reduce spending and corporate welfare (did you vote for McCain, one of the few presidential candidates with the guts to oppose ethanol subsidies?).
Right now the Tea Party is about the only group out there with any momentum that is trying to push these kinds of reforms. No wonder the big corporations that have the government in their pocket hate them so much and use their news media to try to trash their reputation.
Every time I read a science or education related article on slashdot I see a ton of snarky comments about how republicans and conservatives are stupid science haters. Now we have some actuall data and we see that of the bottom five states and districts, three are dominated by liberals. Looking at the map with the article, we see that much maligned Kansas is in one of the upper tiers and that both very liberal and very conservative states are in the high upper tier.
I think it is necessary to point this out. It is time the people who think conservatives are the ones who hate science to look in the mirror.
You should ignore him then. He's probably one of those Tea Party whackos.
(almost forgot to mention, that was sarcasm)
While I disagree with the "corporation is a person" argument, I do recognize that a corporation is an assembly of persons who should not be stripped of their consitutional rights simply because they get organized. In fact the US Constitution explicitly guarantees the right to assemble to petition the government.
I think there are a lot of Americans who don't quite understand what real cultural differences are. They think a significant cultural difference is using chopsticks instead of forks. Because they don't understand that cultural differences are real they may think you're being "racist" when you talk about such differences. Those who have experienced real cultural differences and who understand that correlation does not imply causation are able to understand that commenting about culture is not the same as commenting about race - and that criticizing an aspect of a culture (not that you did) is not always the result of bigotry.
I'm not sure what race has to do with it. American culture and Taiwanese culture are very different. One thing that can differ greatly between cultures is tolerance for behavior that may make a man appear feminine.
You're right that having a large community of Asian immigrants around would be necessary to keep the business afloat while you try to build up the native American market. Also the Americans will be more willing to try the idea if they have Asian friends who have done it.
As for getting the American men to "effeminize" there are two answers. The first is: don't. Have them wear light make-up or none at all, but still do the studio shots and outdoor shots. And you can skip the air bubbles and clouds and stick to themes Americans are more ready to accept (maybe ad some new ones like cowboy-cowgirl pictures). The second answer is: the guy has agreed to marry the girl and put up with the whole wedding thing already (and to wear a TUX!) - what's the big deal with a few bubbles and clouds for the girl he loves?
I lived in Taiwan for a while. I was told, and it fits with what I've seen, that while children in America are raised on the dream of getting a secure high paying job, children in Taiwan are raised on the dream of owning their own business. I suspect that dream doesn't go away just because they move to America.
Americans are used to the options of 1. always being able to find a job (McDonald's is always hiring) and nearly always a decent job (English is the ticket) and 2. having welfare as an option if they're too lazy or "too good" to take the jobs that are available. Immigrants are often raised in places where those options don't exist and starting your own business is the only way to survive. Starting a business is risky and takes a lot of work. Why do it if you have other options for a secure prosperous future?
An immigrant is likely to see opportunities an American would miss because growing up in another culture they know there is another way to do things. For example, if I were more entrepreneurial, artistic and less risk-averse, I would start a business taking wedding photos like I saw in Taiwan and marketing this service to American women. There is more than one way to do wedding photos but living only in America you might not see it.
America's imperial acquisitions occurred more than 100 years ago. Neither I nor anyone I know was alive at the time. Are you saying that a person cannot criticize behavior if any of their ancestors ever engaged in that behavior?
Who then is able to criticize genocide, or murder, or any other crime? Our juries will be left empty and our seats of our judges vacant!
But more importantly, I wasn't suggesting that we throw stones at China, I was suggesting instead that we try to prevent China from throwing stones at our friends and neighbors! Or are you saying that a descendent of a murder must stand helplessly by while more murders are committed even until he himself is murdered?
So my ancestors did some bad things - or perhaps the countrymen of my ancestors did bad things. That doesn't mean I should abandon my capacity to tell right from wrong.
It is one thing to laugh at a stereotype; it is quite another to "fully believe in" it. If you really believe that all or even most Americans "fully believe in" those stereotypes, then I suggest that you have made the mistake of fully believing in an incorrect stereotype.
Well yeah. The British were proud of their empire too. So were the Romans. When your empire is humiliated it hurts. That doesn't mean it was right to engage in imperialism in the first place or that you should have a right to keep an empire forever. The Chinese for centuries were fighting with their neighbors and generally winning. How much tribute do you think Korea and other neighbors paid the Qing and other dynasties over the years? Of course China was humiliated when someone stronger came along and did the same things back to them.
Now China is secure in its present borders which, unlike the current borders of most imperial powers, are pretty close to the largest extent of their empire. But for some reason they think they are the only empire in the world that has an inherent right to expand again to the farthest extent of their past empire. What if all imperial powers did that?
So America is perfection? Anything that America ever did must be ok simply because America did it?
Times have changed. Most civilized countries agree that the age of imperialism should be over. Both America and China did acquire large land holdings through violent means. What's is different is that America in recent years has voluntarily relenquished colonies such as the Phillippines and other smaller Pacific islands and people in Puerto Rico speak of independence without fearing for their lives. China on the other hand has said that its most important policy objective is to reconquer land (Taiwan) based on the fact that Taiwan was part of the Chinese Empire back in the 1800s. And more recently China has insisted that most of the islands between the Phillippines and Vietnam also become part of China (they don't have a historical claim, but the area around the islands is thought to have oil).
The difference is that America has an imperial past. China is actively seeking an imperial future.
China has a long record of imperialism. It is one of the few empires left that has managed to hold on to most of its imperial conquests and is in fact still saying it wants more.
The only reasons China doesn't have a long track record of conquests far from its borders is that China expansions occurred at a time when long range power projection was more difficult and because the resources China was after could be found nearby.
Prior to the 15th century, every empire (except perhaps the Vikings) could be said to have restrictued it's conquests to areas that were within or adjacent to its borders. Even the Mongols who crossed all of Asia and attacked Europe only did so once Europe became "adjacent to their borders".
China's new trick is to pre-emptively declare everything it wants to attack to be "within its borders" (or to use their terms, "an integral part of China").
Their real genius is in how they managed to use European attitudes toward Chinese (they all look and act alike) to let Europeans believe China is a country rather than an empire - and then using that to self-righteously blame other empires for "colonialism" when those empires took over some of China's colonies. Now they want to recover more of their former colonies - push their empire back to its furthest historical extent and beyond - and they have the gall to claim it is their "internal affairs" and that no other countries have a right to interfere even though China made Britain give up its Hong Kong island colonly (only the New Territories were leased, by international law Hong Kong island was a permanent part of the British empire, not the Chinese empire).