Because they aren't viewed as traitors by the side that's taking them. Think of them like Confederate soldiers who crossed the line to join the Union because they were put the nation before their home state. The Confederates would consider them traitors; the Union would consider them loyalists.

It's actually a lot like that time period, because the people in Ukraine consider themselves more loyal to their factional groups than to the country as a whole. Imagine how bad partisanship would be in America if both parties represented groups that literally did not speak the same language and that had the backing of different, foreign powers upon who their prosperity depended.

They didn't have the firepower necessary to hold off even an immediate attack, much win the conflict they would have started when things escalated. All they could accomplish would be to get themselves and possibly others killed. Worse, the example of Georgia has shown that the Russians will use any violent resistance as an excuse to just seize even more territory.

Some of the bases personnel essentially chose to engage in nonviolent protest, marching with flag and no guns (despite getting warning shots from the Russians). It's been a really weird conflict so far, from this distance.

It depends. Did you tell the store owner that it went "missing" and then plan to retrieve it later when no one else is looking?

(Either way, you're at the very least a huge douche, especially if you're the kind that puts frozen or other perishable goods in random places in the store. That point, you've at least committed conversion.)

If you want to get technical, in the classic torts, you are correct that this is theft and not conversion. However, he's not being charged in a tort case. He's being charged for a violation of the Economic Espionage Act, and the relevant section is called "theft of trade secrets." (18 USC 1832)

So, you can either go informal, in which case "theft" is a reasonable, common word for taking someone else's stuff without their permission. Or you can go legalistic, in which case, the charge being applied to him is called "theft" as a matter of statutory law.

Either way, checkmate.

At my age? Never. ANY sleep is better than no sleep. Otherwise you spend the day microsleeping and only waking when your head dips.

That was more of a mining disaster than a nuclear power disaster and would have had similar cleanup issues if the heavy metal contamination was non-radioactive.

Mining disasters are frequently rife with issues of irresponsibility and expenses dumped on taxpayers, poor government oversight due to local corruption, and issues of environmental justice (i.e. the fact that polluting industries tend to seek out poor communities to avoid NIMBYism and to get locals to look the other way when a "job creator" is coming to town). The potential issues of racism and state & federal governments taking any opportunity to shaft Native Americans are just a cherry on top in this case -- but largely irrelevant to the question of the safety of nuclear power.

While he whitewashes the morality of the issue, Jared Diamond's "Collapse" has a pretty good introduction to all the horrors the mining industry creates and why.

Now, that's a bit too far. Hanford was contaminated long before we had any good understanding of how to properly contain radioactive waste, had any solid idea of what kind of harm it could do, and had any kind of national environmental regulation that established standards for proper handling. Oh, and it was a military site which meant that it would have likely been handled incredibly irresponsibly due to the lack of accountability that secrecy provides them.

You should consider whether or not in the current framework with a civilian project forced to obey modern standards whether or not such a mess is likely to occur again and whether it's likely to occur in a manner that creates such a nightmare in the first place. It may still be reasonable to conclude, "No," but you really should hold up Hanford as the measuring stick for what can be done over 50 years (and an entire environmental movement) later.

Yes, but the difference is that isn't not all in a highly soluble form with a high surface area. This is why mine tailings are such a huge source of acid and metal contamination. What would take millions of years to expose to streams and waters via natural erosion is ground up and dumped straight into waterways by industry. The resulting contamination is much higher than you would find by running water over the top of the material before processing.

Do comets count? How "off" of an orbit do you have to be not to count (and yet for Pluto to count).

Where's the big deal in Pluto not being a planet?

Not many, for much the same reasons that polls show that white consider us to be living in a post-racial worlds while nearly everyone else in America disagrees strongly.

You don't generally notice discrimination if you're not the one being discriminated against, since most of it will happen out of your sight. You may have some awareness that "some people" still act that way, but it will seem remote to you and likely overblown.

Does no one remember what it was like to be a geek or nerd in high school? Sometimes people act against you with open, gleeful hostility, but most of the time, it's just a subtle undercurrent of preconceived notions and dismissive attitudes. Guess what? It doesn't really go away when we get older. It just happens to different people.

Define "planet" in a meaningful, non-arbitrary way that does not include dozens of other bodies not traditionally recognized as planets in our solar system (e.g. Ceres). It's believed the Kuiper belt has hundreds of dwarf planets. You want to promote them all just to not have to give up a mnemonic from childhood?

Woah, woah, woah. How do you determine what is and isn't a luxury item within the same category?

Let's take food, for example. So caviar is taxable, but what else is? Fatty tuna? Well, it's pretty expensive, but where do you draw the line between taxable tuna and not taxable tuna? Is there a tuna chart or fat percentage? You mention expensive wines, but where is the line on what's "expensive?" $100 bottles? $50 bottles? $20 bottles? Anything that doesn't come in a box or a 4-pack? Is organic food a luxury? Is meat? Do you tax steak at a Longhorn's different from Waffle House? Hell, are all restaurants luxuries or not, since people can just cook at home?

From the sound of things, you are creating a tax code far more detailed, controlling, and onerous than our existing income tax code. Furthermore, will its dividing lines move with inflation? How do you set up POS check-out terminals to handle this? What about private sellers (e.g. garage sales & eBay)? Etc. etc.

Compounding interest, my friend. Those who can afford to save will see their money grow, and even if they get taxed the same later, they still had a chance to grow in wealth far faster than someone who had to spend it all on necessities.

Because you're dead. You don't really matter anymore. What does matter is whether your kids should be given a windfall of wealth and power without having to do anything to earn it. You may have worked quite hard for your money and thus deserved the benefits of it. But they don't. Unless you taught them how to earn it on their own, at which point they don't really need it.

That said, I only support a high estate tax on wealth over a certain (high) amount. The estate tax should be an anti-aristocracy measure and not something that applies to even the professional class (e.g. doctors, lawyers, etc.) who still have to work hard for their money. It's good to be able to give the family home to your kids. It's not good to be able to ensure they never have to work a day to enjoy all the privileges of wealth.

Taxing consumption disproportionately hits the lower and middle classes, who consume a greater percentage of their income than do the upper classes. It puts the burden of shouldering the government on those least able to afford it. In that manner it would act as a strong barrier to income mobility by preserving wealth for the wealthy and taking it most from the least wealthy.