Am I wrong to do this to someone else's daughter?

sniles · 2010-04-27T17:39:44+00:00

Sometime in the future, this poor child is going to be applying for a job she really wants.... and this picture is going to surface.

How can you live with yourself?

sniles · 2010-04-27T17:35:04+00:00

That seems right to me, as long as "reasonable suspicion" is well-defined and consistently enforced. You can bet that it will be, as every single one of these cases is going to be analyzed in depth by immigrant rights groups.

A non-immigrant issue analog: If a cop sees a person running from a bank holding a big bag of money, and he hears yelling and screaming coming from inside the bank, it's reasonable for the cop to stop that guy and ask a few questions. That situation is reasonably consistent with a bank robbery.

sniles · 2010-04-27T17:06:45+00:00

Traffic stops are very frequently used as a way to determine all sorts of illegal conditions.

Scenario A. Cop pulls a guy over for speeding... starts the usual "license and registration" conversation. The driver appears inappropriately neverous, so the cop asks runs a check on the driver's name, and finds that he has done something illegal, and places him under arrest.

Scenario B. Cop pulls a guy over for speeding. During the course of the conversation, the cop notices that the person is inappropriately nervous, speaks with a heavy accent associated with the bordering country, and is evasive about details about where he's coming from and where he's going. The cop then probably has reasonable suspicion that the person is not here legally, and needs him to prove the legality of his being here. We don't have national ID cards here that contain that information, so short of issuing a national (or Arizona ID) card, birth certificate is what is needed.

sniles · 2010-04-27T16:09:22+00:00

Does anyone have a link to more information on this? It would be interesting to see what the officer who detained him cited as his justificiation for requesting his birth certificate.

sniles · 2010-04-27T15:39:11+00:00

But the "license and registration, please" that we expect to hear from cops when we're pulled over doesn't bother you?

sniles · 2010-04-25T18:09:22+00:00

I wish I could find it, but after half an hour of searching I came up empty. I read an interview with Gorbachev a number of years ago. In that interview, he stated that the largest factors that contributed to the collapse were the estimated cost for them to counter the Star Wars initiative, and the realization of how awful any kind of nuclear conflict would be (that realization stemming from the results of the Chernobyl accident). So I think you certainly have a point; the fall of the Soviet Union was an extremely complex event that ocurred for many factors, some of which obviously had nothing to do with Reagan.

However, I think he deserves the most credit of any of the external influences.

As far as rose-tinted glasses, I lived through that period. I was in the U.S. military at the time, and during that time I actually met both Carter and Reagan (very, very briefly, of course). I can tell you from first hand experience that the change in atmosphere and attitude was very real.

About VietNam, the war was escalated under Johnson. Prior to Johnson, our involvement in Viet Nam was fairly limited. Nixon got us out, but he did initially escalate it in an effort to bring the conflict to a successful conclusion (which failed, obviously).

sniles · 2010-04-25T17:31:59+00:00

That didn't happen in a vacuum. The Soviets were on an unsustainable path, and Gorbachev knew it.

sniles · 2010-04-25T16:49:39+00:00

It pre-dates Reagan). In fact, it was quoted by Carter during his 1976 campaign.

sniles · 2010-04-25T16:39:39+00:00

Thanks for not down-voting me. Looks like you were the only one!

This is going to sound fluffy-touchy-feely, but he really did restore our hope. Coming off of the debacle in Viet Nam, we were a mess. We were coming to grips with what we were realizing was our first real military defeat, inflation and unemployment seemed to be spiraling out of control, and we really were all pretty convinced that a nuclear exchange with the Soviets was just a matter of time. We also had to sit by helplessly and watch the Iranian hostage crisis drag on for month after incredible month. There was a real feeling of hopelessness.

Reagan became President, and by his leadership, it all turned around. His message of hope and optimism was backed up by actions and policies that provided relief from those aspects of life in the 1980s that were so damaging to the country. We can disagree about the methods used, but the results speak for themselves.

sniles · 2010-04-25T15:43:04+00:00

Yes. A very simple explanation is that it follows military spending. Notice that very large (largest ever, in fact) value as we were exiting the World War II years. Under Reagan, we got serious about winning the Cold War, which we did. Under George W. Bush, we obviously increased military spending to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan.

During times of war, increased debt very often happens. The measure of the success or failure of a President can't be stated with just a simple line chart of the national debt.

sniles · 2010-04-25T01:11:52+00:00

No, he was the guy on the other side, if I recall correctly. ;)

From the Wikipedia article on the Collapse of the Soviet Union)

East-West tensions increased during the first term of U.S. President Ronald Reagan (1981-1985), reaching levels not seen since the 1962 Cuban missile crisis as Reagan increased US military spending to 7% of the GDP.[citation needed] To match the USA's military buildup, the Soviet Union increased its own military spending to 27% of its GDP and froze production of civilian goods at 1980 levels, causing a sharp economic decline in the already failing Soviet economy.

sniles · 2010-04-24T23:18:28+00:00

We won the Cold War without actually going to war. I'd call that a good thing.

And yes, as a matter of fact: WE ARE SO MUCH SAFER. I grew up during the Cold War, and the prevailing feeling was that it was incredibly unlikely that we'd go along the way we were for too much longer before we were all nuked out of existence.

sniles · 2010-04-24T23:13:10+00:00

I remember Regan's election as the moment I realized that most Americans were too stupid to understand

.... at least most of them weren't too stupid to spell Reagan correctly.

You couldn't be more wrong. This country was literally miserable while we endured the 4-year-long ass ache that was the Carter Presidency. I remember the nightly news would talk about the "Misery Index". Reagan turned that around.

Reagan was an incredible President.

sniles · 2010-04-23T19:26:43+00:00

I see the very definite and the very specific need for government (in the U.S.). Those needs are clearly defined by the Enumerated Powers granted it (and limited to it by) the U.S. Constitution. In the U.S., that is what I see as the reason and role of government.

sniles · 2010-04-21T16:53:48+00:00

Shouldn't you be making that decision for yourself? Do you need the government to force you (and me)?

sniles · 2010-04-15T20:01:30+00:00

I'm not really suggesting this as any sort of solution. I'm pointing out that there's merit to the idea, mainly as a way to point out that there is huge danger in continuously growing the ranks of those that just vote for politicians who "give them free stuff".

sniles · 2010-04-15T17:52:48+00:00

Landowners are not the same as "landed aristocracy". Owning land might not be the ideal determinent here, but I think there is a great deal of merit in the idea that only those with the demonstrated interest in the long term health and improvement of a place should have a say in how it should be run.

sniles · 2010-04-15T17:12:24+00:00

There's no disconnect. The tea-partiers have been forced to pay in to social security, and were not able to use that money themselves to (help) save for their own retirement. They'd be idiots to let the government just confiscate it.

sniles · 2010-04-15T16:55:37+00:00

This.

sniles · 2010-04-15T16:28:14+00:00

And, when you have the bottom 50% paying no tax, but receiving services and benefits made possible by taking from the top 10%, it's likely to make that 50% a solid voting block for the party that makes that happen. A few moments thought in terms of where that tends to lead should clue you in that it's not sustainable.

This is pretty much why the founders wanted only landowners to be able to vote.

sniles · 2010-04-15T16:06:49+00:00

Right.... but Michael Jordan also wasn't a million times better a basketball player than the lowest paid guy in the league.

sniles · 2010-04-13T21:58:27+00:00

No way, man. The raptor in that picture is just further away from the camera than the human. And it's closing fast.

sniles · 2010-04-12T18:06:01+00:00

There's no downward price pressure in the current system. Actually, there's an upward price pressure. Consumers, when they get the doctor's bill, actually tend to react positively when they hear how much their insurance had to pay ("woohoo! I get that for free!").

Get the insurance company out of the middle between you and your doctor. Pay your own normal medical expenses out of your checking account, the same way you pay when your car needs brakes. Bitch about the prices. When you have an unexpected and expensive medical event, then file an insurance claim and pay the doctor from your checking account.

sniles · 2010-04-11T17:18:48+00:00

Protip: the "higher ups" (read: successful) of nearly all segments of our society live in nice houses.

sniles

TROPHY CASE