I assume you are referring to the U.S. response to the creation of the International Criminal Court. If so, then the fact is that the "laws" the ICC is set up to enforce include laws which the U.S. has NOT recognized, not just the ones which the U.S. has recognized.

If the man name dropped his employer, it is perfectly acceptable that his employer fired him. Of course, it is important that they did not just take Comcast's word for it, but actually heard a recording of where he did so. However, that does not mean that you are wrong. Comcast deserves the bad press for contacting the employer (unless part of that name dropping was to threaten action by his employer against Comcast, in which case not only was his firing acceptable, it is good business).

As has repeatedly been stated, "right to work" and "at will employment" are two separate and unrelated concepts. "Right to work" means that you cannot be required to, among other things, join a union as a condition of employment. "At will employment" means that you may quit your job for any reason you choose and that your employer may fire you for any reason they choose (except for some exceptions written into the law in one place or another). While most states which have right to work laws also have laws stating the employment is at will, this is not 100 percent true.

You can't...and you never could. The difference is that once upon a time, you only had one choice of flavoring in your news, so everyone thought that was just what news tasted like.

First, as a descendant of Victoria, he would be a member of the House of Saxe Coburg and Gotha, since that is the House of all of Victoria's descendants because that was the House of her husband. Second, he would only be a member of that House if he was so descended on the male side. Finally, it is well established that in situations where royals need a surname, the answer I gave would be his surname. So, while as King, he does not have a surname, Glucksburg would be the surname of all of his children who do not have royal titles.
As a result any database in which he was entered that required a surname would list his surname as Glucksburg. However, as king there are few such databases in which he would be entered.

Well, a quick Google search for "current royalty of Europe" results in a link to this Wikipedia page, which tells us that Harald the Fifth of Norway is from the House of Glucksburg, which means that his last name is Glucksberg. So, as I said, just because you do not know it, does not mean that he doesn't have one.

The real reason that teachers do not make "project" work a larger part of the grade is either because that is a lot more work for the teacher, or the subject is one which is really about acquiring a set of knowledge, not about acquiring a set of skills. I am sure there are schools which require that testing be a major component of the grade, but in every class I ever took, the teacher determined themselves how the grade was determined.

That can be fixed by the testing agency having its own rules as a condition of taking the test and as a condition of administering the test. They can even set those conditions in a rather draconian manner. If an organization which is administering a test is caught cheating on the test, all scores ever taken through that organization are thrown out and the organization can no longer administer the test. This rule would need to only apply to tests taken after it was implemented.Obviously any one who took the test who was caught cheating would have their score thrown out. If they were the one enabling others to improve their scores, they would never be allowed to take the test again.

I'm sorry, but "civil society" organizations have for years identified as hate speech any speech which disagrees with their view of what a "civil society" ought to be, identifying as "hate speech" statements made to the effect that "hate speech" laws and rules are an attempt to silence people you disagree with (even when those statements make no negative statement about any group--except possibly identifying groups which have used such tactics).

If they are part of Western culture, even those royals have family names just as the English royals do. Just because you do not know it, and the media don't use it, does not mean that it does not exist. I just went down the list of current sovereign monarchs of the world. The only ones which do not have family names associated with them are the monarchs of Andorra because that role is filled by the current President of France and the current Bishop of Urgell as co-Princes.
So, you are mistaken. It is harder to track down everyone with a noble title, but the same holds true there. Every noble family has a family name (that family name may derive from the territory they rule/used to rule, but it is a family name nonetheless).

Absent a belief in a God who has designated humans as a special creation, there are really only two arguments for not eating other humans. Neither of those arguments apply to any other creature that we have so far encountered. The first, which others have alluded to, is social contract, "I agree not to kill and eat other humans so that other humans will agree to not kill and eat me." The second you refer to in a manner, but seem to overlook its significance. There are proven health problems from eating other humans. As a matter of fact there are several diseases which seem to enter a society as a result of cannibalism, but which do not seem to be limited to the cannibals (there has not been a whole lot of in depth research on the health impact of cannibalism, largely because there are so few cannibals).

No, I am saying that if there is not some authority outside ourselves who defines what is right and wrong, than those words have no meaning. What authority you choose to accept for defining those terms is a matter for a different discussion.

I'm sorry, but I saw some of what she wrote. It was worded so as to maximize outrage and make it difficult to have a rational debate about her points. She did not want to open a discussion and change things. She wanted to get people worked up and angry. So, no, it was not "debunked" that she acted in a manner that was calculated to stir up outrage.

I know that the submitter lifted this line from the article, "campaign to discredit prominent female games journalists", but I read the earlier articles on this subject. The attempt was not to "discredit prominent female games journalists." The attempt was to discredit specific female games journalists, at least one of whom acted in a manner which was calculated to stir up outrage and was possibly unethical (for those of you who want to argue about whether or not her behavior was unethical, I am not interested in spending the time looking at what she did in order to reach a conclusion).

In other words, might makes right.