We declared war on drugs and on terror, maybe AIDs and Covid as well? Though you're right, we haven't declared war on another state since WWII despite being in multiple wars over that time.
I assumed when you wrote "war being declared" you meant in Constitutional sense which reserves to Congress the power to declare war.
Not in the metaphorical "war on poverty" sort of way.
FWIW, examples in addition to Maduro are Aguinaldo (Philippines), Noriega (Panama), Hussein (Iraq), and Aristide (Haiti).
(Technically speaking, the US didn't recognize Philippine independence so didn't consider Aguinaldo to be its president, but instead a rightful cession from the Kingdom of Spain due to the Treaty of Paris, which ended the Spanish–American War, where the US had made a formal declaration of war.)
(Also, the US says Aristide's departure was voluntary.)
> The following extracts are taken from pp. 49 and 50:
> “The recent dominance of the meteoritic impact theory of crater origin makes timely a review of the oases-crater question of Mars. In this treatise, these conclusions have been pointed out:
> “I, Meteorite craters are known on the Earth and Moon; therefore, craters exist on Mars.
> “2. The circular oases on Mars are the size, shape, and number of comparable lunar craters.
> “3. Crater depressions form a natural reservoir, accounting for the intense vegetation in the Martian oases,
> “4. The random distribution of crater oases is apparent, indicating that the canal system was adapted to this haphazard arrangement.
The reviewer of the above points out
> “Why didn’t someone think of the crater theory sooner? The answer is simple. Someone did. Back in 1892, at Arequipa, Peru, W. H. Pickering not only discovered the small black spots on Mars, but he also recognized their similarity to the circlets on the Moon. Because lunar craters were then believed to be volcanic, Pickering may be forgiven for implying that the Martian craterets also were of volcanic origin.
We now know these crater oases were not real. My point is only that some people proposed meteoric craters on the Moon before the 1960s.
I also found https://archive.org/details/exploringmars0000rich/page/150/m... saying in 1954 "no irregularities due to shadows have ever been observed along the terminator—the line dividing daylight from dark—such as would be produced by Martian craters." The author was an American astronomer and also a SF writer in the 1950s. By this we know astronomers were already considering there might be craters on Mars as there are on the Moon.
The 20th century was a period of wild change. Someone born before the first powered airplane flight in their lifetime could have flown on a jet plane to Europe and watched the first moon landing live on TV.
Vaccines put an end to endemic diseases which killed so many children every year. The birth control pill catalyzed the sexual revolution. We had a treatment for diabetes, which was once a death sentence.
The 1950s and onward saw huge changes in how businesses are organized due to computerization. In the US, cheap automobiles, cheap gas, the federal highway system, and subsidies transformed how most people live, including white flight into suburbia.
Plastic was a wonder material. Materials like nylon and polyester transformed the clothing industry.
> The definition in 18 U.S.C. § 2331(5) is broad: acts dangerous to human life that violate criminal law, with apparent intent to intimidate civilians or influence government policy, occurring primarily within the United States. It sounds precise. In practice, applied to protest activity, it creates enormous discretion.
The drift starts with how an incident is viewed and interpreted, even if no laws are broken, simply due to how an investigation is carried out.
> Consider how the label functions operationally. Once conduct gets coded as “domestic terrorism,” cases flow through joint terrorism task forces rather than ordinary criminal investigations. Prosecutors reach for terrorism sentencing enhancements. Banks and tech platforms treat individuals and organizations as if they’ve been officially designated, even when no such legal designation exists. The government’s internal machinery shifts and with it, the tools investigators use and the questions they ask.
This is magnified when there is a crime.
Suppose I block an ICE vehicle. That's illegal. I know full well I'll do the time.
But what's the crime? I might expect a public-order misdemeanor. I'm ready for that time.
What if ICE agents say they feared for their life and were intimidated by my clear attempt to influence government policy? Is my act now criminal intimidation, where I will be prosecuted as a terrorist? Even if found innocent, prosecutions like this historically "diverted investigative resources away from genuine threats while traumatizing thousands of people whose only offense was their politics."
That lack of precision about what 'terrorism' means - a problem pointed out when the law was made! - combined with institutional pressure "to treat the current threat as uniquely dangerous and the old protections as luxuries we can no longer afford" causes that line to drift.
All quotes and the scenario come from the linked-to piece.
Let's be clear about this, barging into a church to "set them straight" while physically obstructing parents from their children is clearly terrorism. I don't see anyone being charged with terrorism though. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ just some more commie pretending and hallucinating.
It says "Those wishing to learn more about the Rust Coreutils efforts at the start of 2026 and their successes over 2025 can find the FOSDEM 2026 presentation assets -- the slide deck as well as the video recordings -- at FOSDEM.org"
If I have "Ajax" brand leather shoes sown by an East Asian sweatshop worker, who is the "creator" of the shoes, for purposes of benefiting from this system?
We are agreed that the company "Ajax" is not a creator, yes? Companies don't create - people create. Patented inventions are created by people, though patent ownership may be transferred to companies.
So does the monthly fee go to the skilled laborer who sewed the pieces together to give the final form? And also the laborers who turned cow hide into leather? As well as everyone involved in the shoe design? Does it also pass to their inheritors? For how long?
The house I owned was built in the 1950s by a local construction firm which is still around. There were several owners before me, including ones who remodeled and renovated it. Do all of them get part of my monthly fee? Or does it go to the woodworkers and plumbers and other builders who did the actual work?
I have books in my personal collection from authors who died decades ago. How do I reward Robert Heinlein in this "keep paying" scheme? Some of these books I bought used, so neither Heinlein nor his estate ever got a penny from me.
But that's fine, as the price point for the original sale already factored in the effect of the First Sale Doctrine.
Just like how the price of a car, house, bike, shows, etc. already factors in the reward for everyone involved, without needed an entirely new system to determine who the "creators" are, and how they get paid monthly.
And that's all assuming the fee distribution system itself is fair. We need only look to academic publishing to see unfair things can be once a system is entrenched.
Do you think the statement 'Public universities are always underfunded' is relevant when asking how it is that Yale, a private university in the US, requires fees for photocopies of class materials, while in UK universities that appears uncommon?
Yale is private. That comment is therefore not relevant to Yale.
Either the UK experience is with private schools, in which case the statement is irrelevant, or it is with public schools, in which case the statement is either wrong or irrelevant.
> Either the UK experience is with private schools, in which case the statement is irrelevant, or it is with public schools
Amused by your use of two more terms that have different meanings in the UK (although young people are confusing things by adopting the American meanings)!
The point is that British universities are almost entirely private institutions that get a lot government funding, in particular for British students (so they pay much lower tuition fees) and research.
There is a heavy reliance on government funding at British universities so they are probably to some extent comparable to American public universities. On the other hand some have substantial resources of their own. They can also turn down government funding, and some have threatened too at times when unhappy with the terms that come with it.
Given that Yale seems to have had a serious funding gap last year because the government reduced funding it seems comparable to what your sources call a "public" university in the UK
> Either the UK experience is with private schools, in which case the statement is irrelevant, or it is with public schools, in which case the statement is either wrong or irrelevant.
Yale has far more money than any British university so regardless of how you classify them, the question of why Yale charges for things British universities do not is relevant regardless of how you classify them.
I think the systems are too different to compare that finely. I think the best way of explaining universities here in American terms is that they are all private universities, but almost all get government funding in return for keeping fees at a set price for British students (overseas students can get charged a multiple of that price).
That is over simplified because of differences between England, Scotland, Wales and NI, and historical differences in how different universities were founded etc, but its roughly correct I think.
Oh, apologies for the red herring here. In UK a 'college' is usually a Further Education College or a Sixth Form College. These institutions cater for students from 16 to 19 plus various adult education courses and some degree level work, the latter usually validated by a local university.
So your experience is of colleges? My fault too as I jumped to the conclusion that a previous comment of yours about not having taught in schools as meaning you taught an university. I should know better, especially as my kids both went to sixth form colleges for A levels.
That said, It makes Yale look even worse. They are better funded that British universities, and universities in turn are mostly better funded than HE/sixth form colleges.
How come you didn't hear about the protests that did occur when Bush, Obama, and Biden all worked to advance the war on immigrants? I did.
I remember quite well when my primary news source, Democracy Now, referred to Obama as the "Deporter in Chief", while he was in office. For decades they've decried every administration's horrible human rights record.
Just because you didn't listen to the right people until now doesn't mean you need to kick yourself for only listening to corporate media like MNSBC and CNN, nor decry everyone else for the media takeover by plutocrats more interested in protecting their wealth and power than giving people news that makes the administration look bad.
A dam can hold back water for a long time, but once a crack forms, a small leak may become a flood. After decades of media suppression, you should expect something like this to break through.
Damn, you just sound ignorant about a lot of things. Like, it's a litany of things that you almost-kind-of-understand, but because the details require just a little more historical knowledge than you have, everything comes out all fucked up.
We can just read what you write and see that's true, my guy.
As a person who lived in the back of my pickup long enough that my son used tease me and call me diogenes, lemme say... you're not doing very much credit to the moniker....
"Flooded minds don’t ask about incentives, second-order effects, or long-term consequences. They ask a single question: how do we stop this feeling right now? That’s when urgency and moral absolutism enter. Action must be immediate. Hesitation becomes cruelty. Nuance becomes complicity. Disagreement is reframed as a character defect: if you don’t agree, you lack empathy. Deliberation is replaced by moral pressure."
Read the article I linked. You are exactly what it's talking about.
I think an important outside revenue source they haven't tapped is sovereign wealth funds from countries that want to ensure there's a way for its citizens to use domestic web sites without depending on an opaque binary blob.
Of course this funding would come with some pretty big strings attached. Including perhaps "no AI in the core system."
reply