Sorry, but I have to say that the United States has never been a "peace loving" nation. I learned that in public school too, but a closer examination of history, especially the last decade, clearly lays that premise to rest. The U.S. was born in by way of war. The U.S. has never hesitated to use it's military for economic gain (Mexico, Central and South America from centuries past). I don't believe we had a valid reason for entering WWI. President Wilson had to so some fancy maneuvering to get the U.S. into it (General Smedley Butler can shed some light, circa 1930's). WWII was necessary, and Roosevelt saw the writing on the wall long before 1941. He had actually reinstated the draft, and, to the limits of his authority, began nudging industries toward fulfilling military needs. It's true that prior to December, 1941, Americans wanted no part in Europe's war (see WWI). Roosevelt had also been giving Britain military aid (Lend-Lease act).
After WWII, unlike after WWI, America didn't disarm. Not something a "peace loving" nation would decide to do. The "Cold War" with the Soviets was but a convenient excuse to continue to pour GDP into military might. The U.S. could have maintained military supremacy over the Soviets with a fraction of the amount of GDP actually spent.
The focus on the military industrial complex served, as an aside to this conversation, to allow other nations to take the lead in consumer electronics. By the end of the "Cold War", nary a TV, radio or any other commercial electronic device (save computers, but they went later) were designed or manufactured in the U.S. Ironically, the fact that military electronics are now essentially manufactured by a potential future foe (China) makes me feel even less safe than if China actually had a military strong enough to threaten the United States.

Rather than ignore the ticket, just send a photograph of the amount of the fine in cash.

http://www.snopes.com/autos/law/handcuff.asp

I doubt either strategy will work, however.

I don't think he said that. He did, however, say this:

I trust no one, not even myself.
Joseph Stalin

I think in this case he was on to something ..

Check out what the Japanese did in Nanking in the 1930's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre. The Japanese leadership of the era was not good (gross understatement). And surrender wasn't an option for the Japanese military. In fact, they brutalized enemies that surrendered to them, because in their eyes it was cowardly. Surrendering made you sub-human in their eyes.

I truly wish that neither WWI or WWII were fought at all. And I truly wish the A-bomb had not been dropped on a civilian city (although the justification was its participation in the Japanese military industrial complex). But by some estimates, it would've cost a million lives - Japanese and American, to successfully invade and conquer mainland Japan.

Japanese died and suffered horribly as a result of those A-Bombs. Japan as a whole was able to forgo even worse bloodshed by using the A-Bombs as an irresistible context to surrender. The military attempted a coup - they wanted to fight to the last Japanese life. In the final analysis, which side was more concerned with the overall preservation of life?

In case you weren't aware, Ebay OWNS Paypal. Your lack of problems using Paypal on Ebay might have a lot to do with that.

Did you really think that they wouldn't? https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/dea-and-nsa-team-intelligence-laundering

Shame you posted as AC. Very succinct redress.

There used to be practical limits to a government spying on its citizens (unless we are talking about a police state, where nothing was above being opened without a reason). The targeted spying of postage communications has always existed. However, a normal citizen could reasonably expect their mail to be delivered unopened, unread and unarchived for future reference. It's possible modern technology has rendered even this doable by a determined spy agency, but it would still be less practical than electronic siphoning.

First Barbary War (1804). The attempted invasion of Canada (War of 1812). The Monroe Doctrine. The 1846 invasion of Mexico. The banana wars. U.S. imperialism is well documented. Also well documented is the use of excessive force against unarmed civilians. Good example is the Ludlow Massacre of 1914.

Isn't it illegal to lie to Congress [http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/06/09/0528228/nsa-surveillance-heat-map-nsa-lied-to-congress]? Isn't it illegal for the NSA to gather information beyond the limits of the FISA laws, or FISA granted warrants [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/08/nsa-boundless-informant-global-datamining]? Makes me wonder who actually "hates our freedom"?

Eliot Spitzer had made a lot of enemies on Wall Street during his run as NY State Attorney General. It's not very hard to imagine how law enforcement was made aware of his extra curricular activities with prostitutes, given his enemies.

This is not to knock your post, though. J. Edgar Hoover had dirt on everyone in Washington (phone taps). That is probably how he remained in his office for as long as he did.

Never heard of the Monroe Doctrine? (I'm being sarcastic)

You're sticking up for bankers who knowingly help criminals profit from their illegal activities, making them criminals, too?

There was absolutely no reason for the police to have been called. It's beyond upsetting to read about kids being cuffed and taken out of school for things that would've warranted having the parents come in, detention or even suspension by the vice principle during my childhood. This affair will influence this person's approach to curiosity in a negative way. The police have a definite place in society. Their role has been undergoing feature creep, though. Time for a fresh look at what we (as a society) are allowing to happen.

Manual transmissions require less maintenance. No oil, filter and gaskets to routinely change. No blown hydraulic clutches or slipping bands to replace when you don't. If driven properly, the clutch will last at least 100k miles (my most recent car had the original clutch for 160k+ miles.)
The gas mileage debate gets emotional, but in my experience, comparing similar model cars, the one with a clutch bests the one with the automatic transmission. On slippery roads, having a clutch is a safety feature. That's my my experience. Automatic transmissions certainly serve a valuable purpose though ..
Long, long time ago, a friend who was 'clutch challenged' bought a Honda 750 with an automatic transmission. I felt bad for him. I had a 450 twin that could out accelerate it. But for him, it was comfortable, and allowed him to participate in something he would have otherwise been excluded from (riding with the rest of us.)