Why is America upset about Russia meddling in their elections when the US has been meddling in other countries' affairs for decades?
For the same reason Russia arrested and convicted Sergei Skripal for spying for the British even though Russia has always had spies in the UK, and the same reason the FBI rolled up a ring of Russian sleeper agents in the United States in 2010, even though the US surely continues to spy on Russia:Because that's how the game works. You can't not play the game, because you know the other guys will, but the game also requires that everyone (a) deny they're doing it and (b) make every effort to thwart the others by pursuing, uncovering, and punishing to the extent possible.International politics are played by overt and covert means. This is hardly a shocker. That doesn't mean, when covert means get outed, that you throw up your hands.Incorrect.When you uncover meddling, you prosecute and convict. Impose sanctions when you can. You also get righteously pissed off, as Iranians and Chileans are about CIA meddling decades ago, and as Iraqis and Afghans are about, well, you know.Come to think of it, some of the fiercest critics of American meddling are Americans. Noam Chomsky, anyone? It's not as if this is unacknowledged.The objective of punishment is, of course, both public relations — you don't want to be seen publicly to be weak on foreign interference, unless you're beholden to the meddling party — and as a deterrent. You need to make covert meddling as risky and difficult as possible. You can't stop it, but you can make it costly.Surely in this case part of the indignation is also a bit of shame that it could be so easy, and, apparently, so without consequence. It is embarrassing that all it took to get millions of people to go to the polls in what looks like a collective temper tantrum and vote in this guy …… was hiring some kids to work gullible Americans into a froth on social media. That is sad, and when people get caught in an embarrassing situation they tend to lash out. It's human nature. Sad.In general, however, it's because that's how the game works.
Japanese Internment Camp Research help, please??
Hello, I may need alittle help on a research project on Japanese Internment Camps. I just need some good research sites where I can find some good info on this topic that is easy to read. Unfortunately, I also have to make a bibliography for the websites I researched at. It has to contain: Name of website. Editor/Author. Date edited. Name of Organization. Date of access. Web address. I would really appreciate your help. Because I really don't know why the hell my ENGLISH II teacher has to give us a project like this that involves difficult research... So remember, I need some good websites on research on Japanese Interment Camps that contained the information for the bibliography example I showed above. *If it doesn't have anything unimportant on it like, Date of access or Editor/Author, its ok ^_^ THANKS:)
Which constitution works better, the U.S. Constitution or the UK Constitution?
They differ not only in what they say, but how they are interpreted, and how they can be modified. The US Constitution is mandatory. It states the way things must be, and also specifies a long and difficult mechanism for changing it.The UK constitution is descriptive (and note the change of case in the word). It describes the way things are. It says the ways should be done if there is no reason to do otherwise. But in practice anybody can amend the "constitution" any time they want - if they can get popular consent, and particularly the consent of Parliament. It describes the normal behaviour, the uncontroversial path, doing things as they have always been done. But you can always stand up and say that a particular institution is obsolete, and we should change. And there will be a discussion, with different levels of civility, and if necessary Parliament, which always has the final word, will rule.Both models have their virtues. The US one has the clarity that it is clearly written - though you need two and a half centuries of Supreme Court judgements to fully interpret it. But it is all there, and not to be argued with, even it it is to be interpreted. But it is relatively inflexible. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the Second Amendment, the arms of the 21st century are very different from the arms of the writers of that Amendment. Today's world offers choices that the Founding Fathers never imagined.On the other hand, the British constitution is written in many places and many styles, much of it precedent rather than legislation. Much of it is "understood" rather than explicit. Which makes it simultaneously to malleable, because any part of it can be changed any time, and too rigid, because it is difficult decide what it is to resist. An example is Prince Charles' letters. How much should the monarch, or the obvious heir, be able to influence those who govern apparently in their name? At the moment, I see the US constitution as creaking, and the British one as not so. On the other hand, maybe Britain's divisions would be better sorted if we had a clear set of rules to stand up for - or against.