The key phrase here being at the time of his death. The most decorated Marine in US history, since at least 1955, was and remains Lt. Gen Lewis Burwell "Chesty" Puller. Just about very Marine can remember doing "one more for Chesty" at the pullup bar or saying "goodnight Chesty, wherever you are" before lights out during boot.

I remember a story about one of the forward camps in Iraq where a portable toilet had scrawled on the wall, "Anyone can piss on the seat, be a hero and shit on the ceiling!"

The economist Thomas Sowell devoted an entire chapter of his book Economic Facts and Fallacies to "Male-Female Facts and Fallacies", including the question of gender inequality in the workplace. In all of the studies and data that he examined, dating back to the early part of the 20th century and continuing up through today, the single biggest factor in different workplace outcomes between men and women was not discrimination, but rather life choices which women commonly make, at the expense of maximizing their careers, but men do not. For example, it was and remains common for women to take an extended detour in their careers in order to have and raise young children and women are more willing to abandon what might otherwise be a promising career in order to do so. Furthermore, women are less likely to accept the sorts of high paying and high demand careers that men often do because attaining that level in a career requires years or even decades of dedicated work to achieve and leaves no time for raising a family or doing anything else but the career (i.e. the "glass ceiling" in the C-Suite). Sowell also found that the data is further skewed by the fact that men who are married to a female who does not work, but instead contributes home making, childcare and other household needs to the family coffers further enhances the career maximizing potential of the married man. In other words, all other things being equal, the married man earned more than his unmarried and similarly skilled male counterparts. Sowell argues that this difference is largely explained by the married men being freed up to concentrate even more on their careers, due to the efforts of their spouse, as compared to the single unmarried man. In summary, the gap between male and female earnings in the workplace both recent and historical is almost entirely explained by different life choices and not any systemic, overt or organized effort to discriminate against women in general as a class. I know that flies in the face of "conventional wisdom" regarding the narrative that is common on the left, but try reading Sowell's argument (he presents it much better than I can) and looking at his cited sources; it's compelling to say the least.

A dose of reality? First there's the 9-5 followed by the wife and then the kids, the house, the mortgage and the cars. By the time that we're done doing all of these things there isn't much left for curiosity or doing non-essential things, "because they're there". Besides, why should I keep doing all of those things and paying my taxes so that you can live out your boyhood moon base fantasies? If you want a moon base, pay for it yourself.

Indeed. What did Nikita Khrushchev say about blaming your predecessor? Sit down and write two letters

Yes, but then what would all those DEA people do for a living? Besides, the bureaucrats and private prison operators have budgets and contracts to protect. The "War on Drugs" is big business after all, and not just for the cartels. It would all be funny, in a farcical sort of way, if the real life consequences weren't so deadly serious.

The bureaucrats whose budgets depend on it?

Indeed, if it were then there would have been no need for copyright or infringement thereof as formal and separate concepts in the law because the property laws would have covered it. The fact that "copyright" does NOT fall under property law and that the "promotion of the progress of useful arts and sciences" is mentioned specifically and separately in the US Constitution, apart from any language concerning property, underscores their separateness and distinctness. The term "intellectual property" was invented and promoted by those whose interests were served by erroneously conflating the concepts of property and copyright or patent law. Indeed, the term "intellectual property" ought not to be used when referring to these matters because it injects bias and error into any discussion of patent or copyright.

And you believe that the 50% which, by your own admission, you pay the government in taxes is spent more wisely and frugally towards those ends than if instead you had directed that money yourself towards those less fortunate people? Surely you know at least a few charities that do more to help the less fortunate with a single dollar than the government can do with hundreds or even thousands? There's a reason why Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and others have pledged their vast fortunes to private charitable foundations rather than to the government in the form of taxes, voluntary or otherwise. The government is stupid and incompetent compared to the private foundations and charities who maximize results and minimize costs. For example, Bill Gates has done more to help vaccinate poor people in a decade than the UN has managed to do in the better part of a century and with a fraction of the budget! If that doesn't convince you of the stunning waste and inefficiency of government, I don't know what will.

Under what power enumerated in the US Constitution would the Federal government be able to interfere in what is quite obviously a local matter? The sales tax in question is a state tax and therefore by definition a state matter. If a local government decides to enter into a contract with a business concerning rebates of some or all of these proceeds for a finite or even an indefinite period of time then what business is that of the Federal Government? What's next, should the Federal Government be able to tell states like Texas that they have to increase or levy more taxes because states like New York and California have elected to impose higher taxes and states like Texas charging less "undercuts" their revenues? Give me a break. People should be careful what they wish for when they seek to empower the Federal Government with new and ever greater authority over their lives. Like the genie of the lamp who turns wishes against the wisher, the Federal Government will twist your dreams into nightmares and by the time you've realized your mistake it will be too late to unring the bell. Generations of Americans fought and died for limited government; don't be too quick to surrender those hard won gains for mere bread and circuses.