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).
Modern weapons make oceans less useful for defense than they once were. Also, when a belligerent power grows it can turn friendly neighbors into enemies. Prior to WWII England was surrounded by water and friendly neighbors. Many deadly bombing raids were launched against them from one of their former friends across the water.
The only countries currently pursuing fifth-generation fighters are China and Russia. At this point, the idea of war with China seems like a remote possibility.
Not if you live in Taiwan. And if China annexes Taiwan, how many other "integral parts of China" will they add to their shopping list? They've already added the South China Sea in recent years. There has been talk about Okinawa. A large chunk of Korea was once part of a Chinese empire. There are parts of India that China has made clear it wants to annex. Parts of Vietnam were at one point part of a Chinese empire. Singapore has lots of ethnically Chinese people.
If the US isn't able to assure air superiority and protect our fleet in and around our allies in the western Pacific, China's anschluss of Taiwan will be a lot easier as will even newer claims about "integral parts of China".
The only countries currently pursuing fifth-generation fighters are China and Russia. At this point, the idea of war with China seems like a remote possibility.
Not if you live in Taiwan. And if China annexes Taiwan, how many other "integral parts of China" will they add to their shopping list? They've already added the South China Sea in recent years. There has been talk about Okinawa. A large chunk of Korea was once part of a Chinese empire. There are parts of India that China has made clear it wants to annex. Parts of Vietnam were at one point part of a Chinese empire. Singapore has lots of ethnically Chinese people.
If the US isn't able to assure air superiority and protect our fleet in and around our allies in the western Pacific, China's anschluss of Taiwan will be a lot easier as will even newer claims about "integral parts of China".
Canada and Switzerland both maintain well-trained well-armed militaries that punch well above their weight.
Canada largely relies on the US as part of a collective defense although Canada contributes proportionally more (significantly more) to that defense than most countries under the US umbrella.
Even Switzerland has to rely to some extent on outside help. Their excellent military preparedness and high altitude to buy them quite a bit of time, but during WWII they did have to make some concessions to the Germans and had the Germans won the war it is doubtful Switzerland would have continued to maintain independence.
I did forget to mention all the valuable economic lessons in those comics. One of the best is when a tornado scatters his money all over town and he earns it all back because he is the only one who continues working on his farm (everyone else is suddenly "rich and quits their jobs), so Scrooge is able to charge thousands of dollars for food.
Without the roommate, you might go 24 hours or even a week without anyone realizing something is seriously wrong (friends might just assume you're busy or on a road trip). Chances are the roommate will be home within a few hours.
I always assumed that it is because it is cheaper to put multiple people in one slightly larger room than to put each person in a separate room. I had no idea that in other countries college students can afford individual rooms.
There are other benefits to having a room-mate. If you get seriously sick in your room there is someone to 1. notice and 2. do something about it.
I have to second this suggestion. Scrooge McDuck comics by Carl Barks are the best. Great stories, great artwork, great values (Scrooge is a tightwad, but he's a tightwad with a strong sense of honor). The adventures are often in far away places or even times and whet the appetite for more knowledge (I first learned of the Labarith, Harpies, the Minotaur, Hadrian's Wall, Kilts, the Klondike gold rush, Diamond mining in Africa, King Solomon's mines, the Greenwich Meridian and a lot of other things through Scrooge McDuck comics).
Scrooge as a hero has a bit of a Spider-man quality to him. Spider-man doesn't want to be a hero and it is a failure on his part that makes him recognize his responsibility. Similarly, but with differences, it is not unusual for Scrooge to initially do the wrong thing in his quest for profit and then realize he has crossed a line and step back. When this happens he steps back willingly but usually not happily. This is an important lesson often left out of superhero comics books - doing the right thing isn't always easy - not because you have to fight others but because you have to go against your own wants.
Another great lesson that you will be hard pressed to find anywhere else is the idea of doing the right thing when no one else knows. Read "Back to the Klondike" if you can find it. I can think of one or two other stories where this lesson is explored (the movie "Hero" with Dustin Hoffman in 1992), but none do it with as much class.
But do be careful which Scrooge McDuck comics you get. Some other authors have treated him badly and he isn't always the respectable character that Barks wrote.
There is no reason a left-handed person and a right-handed person would have better luck flanking/attacking an enemy or prey than a pair of same-handed people.
When you're flanking something then your target is moving laterally to you (that is, when it senses your presence and tries to run). If you need to stike, stab, grab or throw something at your target then the strength and accuracy of your throw will depend heavily on whether your good hand is on the side it is moving toward.
If you have ever actually propelled a canoe, you would know that which side you paddle on does not matter. All steering and control should be done from the same side of the canoe(C-stroke and J-stroke) - you shouldn't be switching the side you paddle on to steer, or using an oar like a rudder.
I have propelled a canoe and though I never mastered the one-sided stearing I know of it. However we're not necessarily talking about two-seaters. Look at pictures of polynesians rowing their canoes that cary 6 or more people. Look at pictures of dragon boats. Not all canoes are tiny.
If you are cooperating with your tribespeople in a fight against a neighboring tribe, why would it be advantageous to have some of your people off-handed? It just breeds specialized tool needs, confusion, and non-conformity. If anything, it makes synchronization of tribe members harder.
I have to admit I'm speculating quite a bit on this one since I'm not much of a fighter. But if you were a good fighter then I would assume that knowing which side is their strong side would help you make your defence and attack. In inter-tribal battle you're unlikely to know the handedness of each of your opponents so it would be helpful to assume they're all right handed. In intra-tribal fights you are likely to encounter the same opponent multiple times (since you won't be killing your fellow tribesman) and you'll learn which of his hands is stronger thus reducing that advantage.
Swinging a hammer from a different angle does not rely on the chirality of the person swinging it, nor does it involve 'opposite hands leading to greater cooperation'
I have found from building and repairing things that sometimes the nail or screw you need to work on is in a hard-to-reach location so that you have to use your weaker hand or hit at an awkward angle. At times it helps to have an opposite handed person around to work those screws or nails.
Where would opposite hands lead to greater cooperation among primitive man?
Think of a group of people rowing a large canoe with some rowing on the left and some on the right. Think of a group of people carrying the canoe. Think of sneaking up and surrounding an animal with some going to the left and others to the right. Think of cooperating in a fight against the neighboring tribe where it helps that your opponent doesn't have a pretty good idea which is your stronger arm. Think of buiding something where it helps to be able to swing the hammer from a different angle to hit certain spots.
Right wing: tending toward fascism. Left wing: tending toward socialism.
How much was ideology and how much was people doing what they would do given the chance?
It makes me wonder what the nice people I associate with everyday are capable of and how much of their decency is self-interested following of social conventions simply because it is convenient.
I was a nerd and picked on in school. To some extent I've seen how people can behave one way in polite society and seem perfectly sweet to other popular kids but be vile and nasty to those they perceive as powerless.
Right wing: tending toward fascism. Left wing: tending toward socialism.
It can be confusing because in America conservatives are often called "right-wing" and the more libertarian a conservative is the more likely he is to be labeled "far right-wing" yet such people are directly opposed to fascism.
Triumph of the Will is available on Netflix. I made my kids watch part of it because I think it is important to see how evil often arrives with a smiley face and how it can be quite charming. Fascism won't announce itself as such instead it will come making promises of easy prosperity.
So if there is no overarching authority, how is that not "every man for himself"? If I 'figure out' that I am financially better off robbing the shit out of people waiting for the bus every morning, does that mean that I can scream "nanny state!" the second they try to prosecute me for doing so?
A core of libertarianism is that people should not have force used against them. One of the few reasons for government is so that government can have a near monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. Robbing people at the bus stop is a use of violence, and one of the few legitimate task for government is to prevent such violence.
Another core of libertarianism is the right to property. If someone is robbing people at bus stops then they are violating people's right to privacy and the government should enforce that right by arresting the robber.
Competition: A national bureaucracy doesn't have someone nearby to make it look bad. Liberals like to cite European countries as examples of how government can be done better. Europe is a long way off and outside of most American's minds. But if a nearby country, city or state is doing better than yours, you're likely to want to change yours (assuming you have sense).
Freedom to choose: If you don't like your national bureaucracy, you're stuck. If you don't like your local bureaucracy, you can move.
From what I've seen from libertarian supporters it generally actually means:
1. very low to no taxes. Keep the government out of my wallet.
2. very few regulations. Keep the government out of my business/gun collection/telling me who and who I can't serve in my own shop.
3. very little redistribution. See 1. I keep mine, you keep yours.
These combine to mean that if you're born poor, you'll stay that way; and vice versa if you're rich.
Libertarians believe in law enforcement preventing people from using force against each other, and prefer to keep the government from using force against people too (except in a few cases such as preventing others from using force against you.) When rich people can't use their money to control the use of violence, people are a lot freer to compete and even win against the existing wealthy. But in the non-libertarian system of the US, the wealthy use their money to control the government and write the regulations in such a way that the use of force prevents their competition from winning. In such a non-libertarian society the rich do get richer and the poor do get poorer.
It ignores that those with money find it much easier to make more money. When people don't want to pay taxes, it means that education and healthcare especially suffers for the poor and middle classes.
We have seen how well education does under government control in places like Washington D.C.. We've seen how health care costs have sky-rocketed with a heavy government hand in health care. With the government taking more control of health care we'll see what happens to cost and quality next.
The wealthy can afford good schools and healthcare, so entrenching their advantage, while the poor are effectively locked into being poor, while the middle class disappears as they now have to compete for their jobs with the cheapest possible workers, often overseas.
Unless we become protectionist (which has its own problems) we're going to have to compete with foreign workers. The government can't save us from the real world.
Remember, no government regulation of business. The environment suffers, as businesses can pollute away, and the commons has no protector.
I agree with you on this. There are some things that just can't be privately owned like the sky, the air, the ocean... Some government regulation is necessary. But we should always be demanding justification for the use of force against people (government operates by force - in fact it's primary role is to have a near monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a society).
Racism, sexism and other 'isms proliferate,
I disagree. Libertarianism does not tolerate Jim Crow laws or any law requiring businesses and individuals to discriminate. Nor does it tolerate the modern racism of affirmative action. Businesses find racism and sexism inconvenient and I doubt many would continue to embrace them if laws requiring discrimination were removed. Some would, to be sure, but if you believe that races and sexes are equal you'll have to agree such racism and sexism aren't profitable and those businesses would suffer.
as again, the existing wealthy land and business owners entrench their positions of privilege, and there's no one telling them 'no'.
Oddly enough, it's the wealthy, white business owners who are most likely to be libertarians.
The government cleverly hides most of its regulations from individuals by making wealthy business owners suffer the burdens. Consider the recent HHS decision saying organizations have to pay for contraceptives for their employees. The typical Catholic voter wasn't directly affected because most don't have employees. But the large organizations were affected. This only made news because the Catholic Church cares enough about its beliefs to object despite the financial conseq
I see "going to the right" as limiting the power and scope of government (by getting rid of laws and decreasing spending). "Going to the left" is expanding the power and scope of government (by increasing regulation and spending). When was the last time either party went to the right?
Justice Scalia objected to the Independent Counsel law because it allowed the prosecutor to dig into the President's affairs to try to find a crime, any crime, that had been committed. This differed from traditional law enforcement where there was first an allegation of a specific crime and then the investigators looked for evidence of that crime.
The black box is like the former. It is something the police can look at to see if any crimes were committed rather than reacting to a crime that was known to have been committed.
This might not be so bad if we weren't drowning in traffic laws (and every other kind of law). The truth is that it is nearly impossible to drive safely while following all the traffic laws. If the police want to nail you for something, they can follow you around for a while and probably get you. But at least you have a decent chance of knowing they're following, and they have to stop you the moment you commit the offense.
But the black box allows another approach. For whatever reason, the police decide they don't like you. Now they can pull your black box and check your driving history to find something - anything - at any time. And you may not even remember the event (that time you had to accelerate to avoid the deer - well you exceeded the speed limit and since you don't remember it you can't offer any defense).
Politicians and celebrities have to be on guard all the time because there is always some paparazzi or other camera on them. The rest of us don't want to live like that.
Yes, we all remember those proud defenders of civil liberties, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.
It's kind of jarring seeing those two names in the same sentence - like someone saying "those proud defenders of freedom, Joseph Stalin and Mohandas Gandhi".
I think a few Republicans, Reagan is one of them, did care about civil liberties and smaller government - but I think too many Republicans have just talked about it (which is more than most of the Democrats do).
I would generally agree with your assessment. My only issue is that the wording of the Bill is somewhat open-ended, in that it does not say any specific requirements for what gets recorded, only a general statement on "safety" related data.
If the bill specified exactly what "safety" related data could be collected, that would take too much power away from presidential appointees and congressional committees who will continue to redefine the meaning of "safety related data" every year, thus providing lobbyists new reasons to give them money every year. If we take away the arbitrary power of our leaders, their campaign funding will start to dry up. We can't have that!
Most black families in the US have been here longer than most white families in the US. Even if their ancestors spoke an African tongue, is it not possible that their ancestors learned English from people who were using the older form of the word?
In the earlier 4-4 decision (Kagan recusing self), which justices voted for which side?
How many textbooks did the guy import and sell. Was it just for friends and family or was he running a business?
Were the textbooks bought overseas in violation of copyright when he bought them overseas or was it merely the fact that he tried to resell them and do so in the US that is being complained about?
Slashdot Mirror
Modern weapons make oceans less useful for defense than they once were. Also, when a belligerent power grows it can turn friendly neighbors into enemies. Prior to WWII England was surrounded by water and friendly neighbors. Many deadly bombing raids were launched against them from one of their former friends across the water.
Not if you live in Taiwan. And if China annexes Taiwan, how many other "integral parts of China" will they add to their shopping list? They've already added the South China Sea in recent years. There has been talk about Okinawa. A large chunk of Korea was once part of a Chinese empire. There are parts of India that China has made clear it wants to annex. Parts of Vietnam were at one point part of a Chinese empire. Singapore has lots of ethnically Chinese people.
If the US isn't able to assure air superiority and protect our fleet in and around our allies in the western Pacific, China's anschluss of Taiwan will be a lot easier as will even newer claims about "integral parts of China".
Any bets on what we'll feed the alligator next?
Canada and Switzerland both maintain well-trained well-armed militaries that punch well above their weight.
Canada largely relies on the US as part of a collective defense although Canada contributes proportionally more (significantly more) to that defense than most countries under the US umbrella.
Even Switzerland has to rely to some extent on outside help. Their excellent military preparedness and high altitude to buy them quite a bit of time, but during WWII they did have to make some concessions to the Germans and had the Germans won the war it is doubtful Switzerland would have continued to maintain independence.
The rule is not limited to scientific articles. I'm pretty sure it applies to most if not all topics.
I did forget to mention all the valuable economic lessons in those comics. One of the best is when a tornado scatters his money all over town and he earns it all back because he is the only one who continues working on his farm (everyone else is suddenly "rich and quits their jobs), so Scrooge is able to charge thousands of dollars for food.
Without the roommate, you might go 24 hours or even a week without anyone realizing something is seriously wrong (friends might just assume you're busy or on a road trip). Chances are the roommate will be home within a few hours.
I always assumed that it is because it is cheaper to put multiple people in one slightly larger room than to put each person in a separate room. I had no idea that in other countries college students can afford individual rooms.
There are other benefits to having a room-mate. If you get seriously sick in your room there is someone to 1. notice and 2. do something about it.
I have to second this suggestion. Scrooge McDuck comics by Carl Barks are the best. Great stories, great artwork, great values (Scrooge is a tightwad, but he's a tightwad with a strong sense of honor). The adventures are often in far away places or even times and whet the appetite for more knowledge (I first learned of the Labarith, Harpies, the Minotaur, Hadrian's Wall, Kilts, the Klondike gold rush, Diamond mining in Africa, King Solomon's mines, the Greenwich Meridian and a lot of other things through Scrooge McDuck comics).
Scrooge as a hero has a bit of a Spider-man quality to him. Spider-man doesn't want to be a hero and it is a failure on his part that makes him recognize his responsibility. Similarly, but with differences, it is not unusual for Scrooge to initially do the wrong thing in his quest for profit and then realize he has crossed a line and step back. When this happens he steps back willingly but usually not happily. This is an important lesson often left out of superhero comics books - doing the right thing isn't always easy - not because you have to fight others but because you have to go against your own wants.
Another great lesson that you will be hard pressed to find anywhere else is the idea of doing the right thing when no one else knows. Read "Back to the Klondike" if you can find it. I can think of one or two other stories where this lesson is explored (the movie "Hero" with Dustin Hoffman in 1992), but none do it with as much class.
But do be careful which Scrooge McDuck comics you get. Some other authors have treated him badly and he isn't always the respectable character that Barks wrote.
When you're flanking something then your target is moving laterally to you (that is, when it senses your presence and tries to run). If you need to stike, stab, grab or throw something at your target then the strength and accuracy of your throw will depend heavily on whether your good hand is on the side it is moving toward.
I have propelled a canoe and though I never mastered the one-sided stearing I know of it. However we're not necessarily talking about two-seaters. Look at pictures of polynesians rowing their canoes that cary 6 or more people. Look at pictures of dragon boats. Not all canoes are tiny.
I have to admit I'm speculating quite a bit on this one since I'm not much of a fighter. But if you were a good fighter then I would assume that knowing which side is their strong side would help you make your defence and attack. In inter-tribal battle you're unlikely to know the handedness of each of your opponents so it would be helpful to assume they're all right handed. In intra-tribal fights you are likely to encounter the same opponent multiple times (since you won't be killing your fellow tribesman) and you'll learn which of his hands is stronger thus reducing that advantage.
I have found from building and repairing things that sometimes the nail or screw you need to work on is in a hard-to-reach location so that you have to use your weaker hand or hit at an awkward angle. At times it helps to have an opposite handed person around to work those screws or nails.
Think of a group of people rowing a large canoe with some rowing on the left and some on the right. Think of a group of people carrying the canoe. Think of sneaking up and surrounding an animal with some going to the left and others to the right. Think of cooperating in a fight against the neighboring tribe where it helps that your opponent doesn't have a pretty good idea which is your stronger arm. Think of buiding something where it helps to be able to swing the hammer from a different angle to hit certain spots.
How much was ideology and how much was people doing what they would do given the chance?
It makes me wonder what the nice people I associate with everyday are capable of and how much of their decency is self-interested following of social conventions simply because it is convenient.
I was a nerd and picked on in school. To some extent I've seen how people can behave one way in polite society and seem perfectly sweet to other popular kids but be vile and nasty to those they perceive as powerless.
It can be confusing because in America conservatives are often called "right-wing" and the more libertarian a conservative is the more likely he is to be labeled "far right-wing" yet such people are directly opposed to fascism.
Triumph of the Will is available on Netflix. I made my kids watch part of it because I think it is important to see how evil often arrives with a smiley face and how it can be quite charming. Fascism won't announce itself as such instead it will come making promises of easy prosperity.
So if there is no overarching authority, how is that not "every man for himself"? If I 'figure out' that I am financially better off robbing the shit out of people waiting for the bus every morning, does that mean that I can scream "nanny state!" the second they try to prosecute me for doing so?
A core of libertarianism is that people should not have force used against them. One of the few reasons for government is so that government can have a near monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. Robbing people at the bus stop is a use of violence, and one of the few legitimate task for government is to prevent such violence.
Another core of libertarianism is the right to property. If someone is robbing people at bus stops then they are violating people's right to privacy and the government should enforce that right by arresting the robber.
What on earth makes you think local bureaucracy would be any better than a national one? You don't think you can be ripped off just as efficiently (if not more so) on a local level?
Competition: A national bureaucracy doesn't have someone nearby to make it look bad. Liberals like to cite European countries as examples of how government can be done better. Europe is a long way off and outside of most American's minds. But if a nearby country, city or state is doing better than yours, you're likely to want to change yours (assuming you have sense).
Freedom to choose: If you don't like your national bureaucracy, you're stuck. If you don't like your local bureaucracy, you can move.
From what I've seen from libertarian supporters it generally actually means:
1. very low to no taxes. Keep the government out of my wallet. 2. very few regulations. Keep the government out of my business/gun collection/telling me who and who I can't serve in my own shop. 3. very little redistribution. See 1. I keep mine, you keep yours.
These combine to mean that if you're born poor, you'll stay that way; and vice versa if you're rich.
Libertarians believe in law enforcement preventing people from using force against each other, and prefer to keep the government from using force against people too (except in a few cases such as preventing others from using force against you.) When rich people can't use their money to control the use of violence, people are a lot freer to compete and even win against the existing wealthy. But in the non-libertarian system of the US, the wealthy use their money to control the government and write the regulations in such a way that the use of force prevents their competition from winning. In such a non-libertarian society the rich do get richer and the poor do get poorer.
It ignores that those with money find it much easier to make more money. When people don't want to pay taxes, it means that education and healthcare especially suffers for the poor and middle classes.
We have seen how well education does under government control in places like Washington D.C.. We've seen how health care costs have sky-rocketed with a heavy government hand in health care. With the government taking more control of health care we'll see what happens to cost and quality next.
The wealthy can afford good schools and healthcare, so entrenching their advantage, while the poor are effectively locked into being poor, while the middle class disappears as they now have to compete for their jobs with the cheapest possible workers, often overseas.
Unless we become protectionist (which has its own problems) we're going to have to compete with foreign workers. The government can't save us from the real world.
Remember, no government regulation of business. The environment suffers, as businesses can pollute away, and the commons has no protector.
I agree with you on this. There are some things that just can't be privately owned like the sky, the air, the ocean... Some government regulation is necessary. But we should always be demanding justification for the use of force against people (government operates by force - in fact it's primary role is to have a near monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a society).
Racism, sexism and other 'isms proliferate,
I disagree. Libertarianism does not tolerate Jim Crow laws or any law requiring businesses and individuals to discriminate. Nor does it tolerate the modern racism of affirmative action. Businesses find racism and sexism inconvenient and I doubt many would continue to embrace them if laws requiring discrimination were removed. Some would, to be sure, but if you believe that races and sexes are equal you'll have to agree such racism and sexism aren't profitable and those businesses would suffer.
as again, the existing wealthy land and business owners entrench their positions of privilege, and there's no one telling them 'no'.
Oddly enough, it's the wealthy, white business owners who are most likely to be libertarians.
The government cleverly hides most of its regulations from individuals by making wealthy business owners suffer the burdens. Consider the recent HHS decision saying organizations have to pay for contraceptives for their employees. The typical Catholic voter wasn't directly affected because most don't have employees. But the large organizations were affected. This only made news because the Catholic Church cares enough about its beliefs to object despite the financial conseq
mod parent up
I see "going to the right" as limiting the power and scope of government (by getting rid of laws and decreasing spending). "Going to the left" is expanding the power and scope of government (by increasing regulation and spending). When was the last time either party went to the right?
"A bill already passed by the Senate and set to be rubber stamped by the House"
The senate is controlled by Democrats.
Remember when the Democrats used to be all about civil liberties and keeping the government from crawling up your ass?
I'm only in my 40s, so no.
Justice Scalia objected to the Independent Counsel law because it allowed the prosecutor to dig into the President's affairs to try to find a crime, any crime, that had been committed. This differed from traditional law enforcement where there was first an allegation of a specific crime and then the investigators looked for evidence of that crime.
The black box is like the former. It is something the police can look at to see if any crimes were committed rather than reacting to a crime that was known to have been committed.
This might not be so bad if we weren't drowning in traffic laws (and every other kind of law). The truth is that it is nearly impossible to drive safely while following all the traffic laws. If the police want to nail you for something, they can follow you around for a while and probably get you. But at least you have a decent chance of knowing they're following, and they have to stop you the moment you commit the offense.
But the black box allows another approach. For whatever reason, the police decide they don't like you. Now they can pull your black box and check your driving history to find something - anything - at any time. And you may not even remember the event (that time you had to accelerate to avoid the deer - well you exceeded the speed limit and since you don't remember it you can't offer any defense).
Politicians and celebrities have to be on guard all the time because there is always some paparazzi or other camera on them. The rest of us don't want to live like that.
Yes, we all remember those proud defenders of civil liberties, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.
It's kind of jarring seeing those two names in the same sentence - like someone saying "those proud defenders of freedom, Joseph Stalin and Mohandas Gandhi".
I think a few Republicans, Reagan is one of them, did care about civil liberties and smaller government - but I think too many Republicans have just talked about it (which is more than most of the Democrats do).
I would generally agree with your assessment. My only issue is that the wording of the Bill is somewhat open-ended, in that it does not say any specific requirements for what gets recorded, only a general statement on "safety" related data.
If the bill specified exactly what "safety" related data could be collected, that would take too much power away from presidential appointees and congressional committees who will continue to redefine the meaning of "safety related data" every year, thus providing lobbyists new reasons to give them money every year. If we take away the arbitrary power of our leaders, their campaign funding will start to dry up. We can't have that!
Most black families in the US have been here longer than most white families in the US. Even if their ancestors spoke an African tongue, is it not possible that their ancestors learned English from people who were using the older form of the word?
I RTFM and it's missing some information.
In the earlier 4-4 decision (Kagan recusing self), which justices voted for which side?
How many textbooks did the guy import and sell. Was it just for friends and family or was he running a business?
Were the textbooks bought overseas in violation of copyright when he bought them overseas or was it merely the fact that he tried to resell them and do so in the US that is being complained about?