The government attempts to tightly control inflation, and availability of money in general. Tell me how a private company is going to beat that.

Aside from the many cheap and goofy devices that obscure the license plate to electronic cameras, you just logically made all other forms of electronic tracking and gps based systems superfluous.

Oh wait, our government, in an rare fit of common sense, realizes that a ubiquitous network of cameras nationwide would be prohibitively expensive.

Oh, we could. And the world would pass us by, much like 1900's Japan.

That's moronic. There's no way short of bypassing another country's sovereignty to inspect and enforce our laws on foreign based businesses. It's impossible to inspect them from afar with any degree of assurance. WMD's in Iraq, for example.

Sure it's exploitation. Given that there is no way to practice inter-nation commerce with a nation that does NOT have identical environmental, wage, and human rights policies, the only alternative is to seal our borders and live without the benefits of global economies. You know, things like foreign oil, electronics, rare minerals, and imported EVERYTHING.

True, but I usually take the "from space" figure of speech to be visible from low earth orbit with 20/20 unassisted human vision. Yes I am aware that low earth orbit is a grey area, and not 100% entirely "outer space".

The problem isn't mismanagement. It's lack of management. Industrial oversight is not intuitive to new industrial booms, because the short term profit will always outweigh the long term unseen consequences until they come to light.

The free market doesn't have two constitutional clauses to cover it's back. The postal and interstate commerce clauses both specifically assign this job to the federal government.

I've maintained for years that China, Mexico, and similar countries going though industrial booms are simply in early stages of industrial revolution. Next we shall see environmental, wage, and health reforms, as these countries realize the need for sustainable management of their labor base.

You mistakenly believe that force of law is effective in privacy rights. http://www.dhs.gov/

If you want your car to be invisible to electronic monitoring, you must drive a car with no electronic capability. I suggest one of these http://www.legendaryfind.com/

By admitting the need for an opt-in requirement, you are implicitly agreeing with the need for an opt-out mechanism. You're arguing semantics.

To be pedantic, "Succession" would be viable as a result of impeachment. Just saying.

All good. 8-)

I hope we see good results from this publicity. Or at least discover the other half of the story. You know, the US's version of the "truth".

By posting as Anonymous Coward, and presenting such an uncooperative speculation, I'm assuming you are a spitter. Perhaps you can inform us as to which option is favorable, and when? You seam to be much more experienced at this particular form of interview.

You're assuming the "best applicant" will the one that plays by the rules, and minimally performing at that. Resume coaches universally encourage people to break the rules in creative and fun ways, from colored resume paper to resumes formatted around large pictures, to delivering said resume in a memorable way. And nothing beats the connection on the inside of the company. Becoming the "best applicant" involves going past the effort of the crowd. If that means a degree AND a mariachi band, then the person that delivers the live music gets the job.