Right. Which was about a third of the country, and precisely the people that would have voted the other way.

So America should get involved in a war over the principle that the sanctity of borders is more important than the self-determination of people? Plenty of arguments can be made about which side is right or wrong. But the bottom line is that there is a huge gray area. Even if the Ukrainian government prevails militarily, the eastern regions will be nearly ungovernable, and the situation will fester for years if not decades. A negotiated end to the war would be in everyone's best interest, and that will required concessions by both sides. The people in the west shouting "no appeasement" should keep in mind that many people in Russia are shouting the same thing about "appeasement" of the West. If we really insist on taking a hard no-compromise stance, we will probably lose. The Russians have both the troops on the ground and the support of their people. We have neither.

There are also plenty of historical examples in history where appeasement (also known as "compromise") did work. If fact, it has probably worked better than taking a hard line more often than not. Just because it didn't work with Hitler, doesn't mean it never works.

The Ukrainian situation is not black and white. The current Ukrainian government was not elected in a nationwide vote, and one of their first acts was to ban the use of Russian (the first language of half the population) as an official language. They intentionally alienated and provoked the eastern regions. Eastern Ukraine speaks Russian, and their economy is more closely integrated with Russia than it is with Western Ukraine. It is understandable that they want either autonomy or secession, and I don't see why that is wrong. Why should we get more involved in a war to deny people self-determination?

Even easier, just break open a stem. If the sap is milky, it is likely to be poisonous, and even more likely to taste very bitter. If the sap is clear, it may not be digestible, but it is not likely to be poisonous.

... and one of those politicians is Harry Reid, the most powerful man in the Senate. But after the election on November 4th, he likely won't be the majority leader anymore.

The compromise is the bargain, and it isn't stupid or shortsighted. A central repository would be extremely expensive. Billions were spent on Yucca Mountain, just on analysis and legal fees. On-site storage is "good enough" for now, and nukes will require security guards regardless. We can build the centralized storage facility in a few decades when our understanding of geology, robotics, engineering, etc. will have progressed. Or even more likely, by then we will have figured out economic uses for many of the waste components, and the "waste" will no longer need to be disposed of.

That is one solution. But there are others:
1. Charge an "access fee" (really a tax) on all internet connections, and use that money to subsidize service to rural and/or low income people. We already do this with phone service, and the universal access mandate is basically a backhand way to do the same thing.
2. Get rid of the notion that some people should have their internet service subsidized by others. Instead, everyone can pay the real cost, and we can alleviate poverty in other ways, such as higher income tax credits, rather than with a large number of market distorting subsidies for specific goods and services.

There were lots of peaceful protesters and far fewer rioters. The police were distracted, and rioters used the protests as cover. If there had been no protests, there would have been no riot. If there was a clear record of what happened, there would have been no protest. For instance, this shooting looks unjustified to me, and the police lied about what happened, saying the perp came toward them with a raised knife, and they only fired when he was 2-3 feet away. None of that was true. But there was no protest or riot.

It hasn't been done for a number of reasons:
1. Micro-gravity isn't that big of a deal. If a handful of astronauts need glasses, that isn't a major problem.
2. Lots of experiments on the ISS require micro-gravity.
3. It makes docking more difficult.
4. Spacewalks to do repairs and maintenance are more difficult.

Just spin the space station. The centripetal force can substitute for gravity. This doesn't work for small space craft, because the different forces on the head and feet will cause nausea. It is also a problem for people doing outside repairs, because any untethered tools or components will fly away. But for a large space station, such as an O'Neill Cylinder, or multi-generational starship, spinning should work fine.

No. It is not at all what we have now. Without a camera, it is my word against the cop. With a camera, it is my word against a cop that is claiming he "lost" critical exculpatory evidence. That is a huge difference, because in the second case the cop will have far less credibility. I have served on juries several times, although only once where the credibility of the cop was an issue. The jurors did NOT just assume he was telling the truth. Instead, we discussed his possible motivations for lying and distorting the evidence. In the end, we chose to believe him, because we didn't see any reason for him to lie, and his testimony was corroborated by other evidence. Juries tend to be made up of minorities, and economically disadvantaged people, that don't have the motivation or ability to weasel out of it. These are the people least likely to believe cops. If the cop says the camera malfunctioned, the defendant is going to walk.

This is flat out wrong. All the evidence to date shows that cop-cams result in a dramatic reduction in complaints, for two reasons:
1. Since there is a recording, there are far fewer false allegations
2. Since they are being recorded, the cops behave better, so there are fewer incidents that result in valid allegations.

Here is a typical result:

In the case of Michael Brown, YES, a camera likely would have prevented the riots. The riots didn't occur because a white cop killed a black kid, but because there was a perception that it was unjustified and the cop "got away with it". If there was a camera, there would be much less dispute about what happened. The camera would either show that the shooting was justified, or it would show that it was not and the cop would be charged with murder. In either case, I don't think there would be a riot.

Uniform application of justice would mean that middle class white people would be treated the same as black teenagers. That would be terrible, at least for people like me.

The police cars in Ferguson, Missouri, where Michael Brown was killed, have no cameras. No dashcam. No interior cam. No cam on the officer. Nothing.

The cost of the cameras is insignificant compared to the cost of the lawsuits, and riots, that occur in their absence. They also cut down on paperwork, because the video itself is a record of the interaction, so the cop can spend less time writing reports and more time policing. They also save lots of money by reducing arrests, since cameras have a calming influence on both cops and the perps. People behave better when they know they are being filmed.

Yet they can afford armored vehicles and military weapons.

There are plenty of "no regrets" policies, that should be done regardless of global warming. We should reduce our fuel consumption and dependence on imported oil for reasons of economics and national security. Third world countries should reduce population growth through education and better access to contraception, because that is their path out of poverty.