True in the most general sense. Generalized political violence is very different from the state using force to based upon the accent of the govern where we have a generalized concept of human rights. To me its a little like saying all art can be be made up with pixels therefore everything is a pixel.
I have been in Union shops before working in tech. In some places they are fine in others its where your worst employee on your team goes to make everyone else less effective.
The us was the only industrialized economy to come out ww2 unscathed. We didn't have to compete for 2 decades. The end results of these policies was the stagnate 70s Reagan was a corrective. However, the policies of Regan only made sense in that context. Republicans became too found of cutting top end taxes when most of what could be gained already was in the 80s. There is no historical period to look at on how to deal with the consequences of integrating China with the rest of the world.
The former solves the problem but isn't really on the table. The later doesn't settle the question. Both sides would have to come up with a mutually agreeable solution and that isn't on the table.
All powers are mutually antagonistic and it prudent to prepare to confront each other. As long as thoes efforts are equally matched and neither side is prepared thinks it can gain an advantage the peace is held as it held during the cold war.
That was the us policy for 20 years under the assumption that political liberalism with follow economic liberalism. It has not. This is also no one sided. China is preparing for conflict with the US so we must also. Yes hawks can push a country into war but so can doves.
The problem is unsolvable. You have two sets of people with sets of claims on the same land. Both sides have an unshakable resolve that they are in the right and nothing is going to change that.
Latin America has its own problems with or without American intervention. Venezuela elected Hugo Chavez all by itself and he destroyed the country. I am for a very lax immigration system but one that does have some form of accountability and enforcement the status quo is untenable.
How would that work in our system. The election are distrusted and open by law. Trump is an authoritarian who will test the system but the system will hold.
Why do you think you don't. It could be you who is deceived. Everyone thinks they are the person that sees things for what they are but it can't be true for all of us.
capitalism is so that strangers with no reason to cooperate can via the market. It should have nothing to say about you network or closer relations and how you interact. Altruism has a large place in life but in general it is directed to friends and family then your larger social groups.
healthy society only work if most people are virtuous and take care of themselves and their families. The cost to care for the neglected and broken isn't sustainably if its more than a tiny percentage of the population.
One guy I finally got fired because he built a lego shelf at his desks for weeks rather than work. I'm not saying that is normal but people can drag out slacking off for a long time remote.
I hate working at home. I have 20 years of going into an office. I need the separation or I just work ineffectively for a lot longer. I'm Dyslexic and choose teams that didn't work remote because I don't like Async communication. For lots of people the structure of going into work makes them more effective. All these think pieces should just stop and let people vote with their feet.
I think this is a grey area. If you commit a crime via the internet like fraud can a state go after you? I guess I think so. Should Assange have been prosecuted is a different matter. Can journalists be prosecuted seems also like a hard case by case question. In general if you are acting in the public interest and only act as a publisher IE do not recruit or gain secrets yourself you shouldn't be prosecuted. I also think it's 100% in an other nations right to deny extradition. So what I think is that this is a hard case with lots of grey area that isn't as clear cut as people pretend it is.
Its not like what wiki leaks did is new. The pentagon papers were published 50 years ago. The us government should be held to high standards and we need a press to do that. At some level however in a world of competing states if an organization is only interested in undermining one state it makes it less trust worthy in my eyes. I think Assange views the US as an evil actor and that informs what he thinks is worthy of coverage. Its why he could call Afghans who worked with the US as collaborators as in his eyes working with the US makes you evil. I think that world view is insane and naive.
However as I said there is real utility to publishing information which shouldn't be kept from the public. Which is why I think Assange is a hard case.
If Assange showed any interest in also undermining Russia or other authoritarian regimes I would feel more compassion. I think criticization of the US foreign policy is fine and the press has a role. To me his case has always been grey. States have secrets its just the nature of the world.
The british and French assumed the germans were going to swing though belgium again as they had done in WW1. Also they spread their tanks out as infantry support the germans had concentrated tank units.
Two of the kids later died in parental custody after being returned. I'm not sure what prejudices I should evaluate. My experience is that Indiana CPS has a hard job and can't get it right in a lot of cases. We don't have a vast array of foster parents ready to handle kids with a lot of issues nor do we really have orphanages anymore. You number 1 most import part of life is having good parents who care for you regardless of their means there isn't a system that can fix that.