There is no "hate speech" exclusion for the first amendment (1A). And almost every effort to curb the 1A has been bad. Destroying public property because it "offends you", is no exception. And if you start destroying others tributes, then why should any be allowed?
Before you grease a slippery slope, the reasonable ask, "what's at the bottom?"
I hardly have a dog in this fight, and don't have a problem (in theory) with either side -- but both sides can be preachy and wrong. While I'm no anti-Vaxxer (I've gotten all mine, I don't think vaccines are the cause of autism, and I would get them for my imaginary kids), I find the anti-Vax crowd has points that the anti-anti-vax crowd is either unwilling or incapable of understanding (their arguments are more simplistic and focused around the cult of authority). There are extremes and idiots on both sides, but I usually throw out the outliers and listen to the moderates on both sides, and the anti-Vaxxers I know, are far more well reasoned than the anti-anti-Vaxxers, at least based on the arguments both sides have presented. That could just be the circle of libertarian minded friends, or many articles I've read. But I've searched and found few anti-anti-vaxxers that were well informed or willing to concede valid points. To me, it's not ignorance that's a problem, but willful ignorance mixed with preachy sanctimony that gets on my nerves. This article has a few reminders on these facts.
I'm not black, but I did live in black communities, and what I saw (as an outsider) was the black community distrusts the system and sees everything as conspiracies, thus every event that happens is seen through that bigoted lens. If most of the things you see are wrong/biased, then most of your reactions will also be wrong/biased, especially if the media/democrats are sensationalizing and feeding the hate/unrest.
Old truckers never die, they just re-tire. Anyways, the point is those screaming automation will destroy us all, are missing that they've been saying the same thing since Ug first tied a spear tip to a spear, and Zug predicted that would end all animal life. This is nothing new.
There's a rate of change that can cause short term localized issues. But historically the costs of labor versus costs of automation balance each other out. Eliminating drivers ups the demand for loaders/unloaders and sales/repair people.
Even disruptive technologies don't happen overnight. Look at smart phones, the most massively disruptive technology of our era... poor flip phone builders were devastated. But we created more jobs in Apple stores than were lost at nokia. Smart phones didn't eliminate laptops and desktops. And lots of jobs were created in improving data networks and mall kiosks for phone accessories and repairs. The systems balance. More people are better off now, and enjoy the fruits of the transition than before. Most of those predicting catastrophe are ignoring history, or the parts of the equations they don't want to see.
There's even a 200 year old word for them, having to do with those that would destroy the tools of automation in the early 19th century... luddites.
The answer for every program is "compared to what?".... you could do all these other thing: desalinated clean water, more sewage treatment, much more clean energy, and 3,000 miles of more lanes and 9,000 miles of resurfacing.... or a high speed rail that few will use. Which sounds better?
High speed rail would be great for me: it's stealing billions of dollars from the poorer parts of the state and nation, to subsidize a rail line that will be under-utilized, but convenient for a few. And I'm one of the few. That being said, since I'm not greedy/selfish or as misinformed as the supporters, I think it would be better if this thing died a quick death (and better still, if the math challenged had realized how flawed the boondoggle was from the get-go). Planes and busses will be cheaper, faster and more economical, and the world doesn't need another testament to Jerry's ego, and the gullibility of California voters.
Yup. The difference between investment and public works, is in the former you have to convince investors to choose to support something risky, because of the potential returns (either to society, or economically). In the latter, you just force people to invest, even if they completely disagree with the risks/returns (like California's crazy train).
51% of the most gullible, in two cities (LA and Bay Area) get to force the rest of the state to fund their loser boondoggle, that few private investors would take a chance on. In the meantime real investment in the future is going on elsewhere, by private concerns. Texas and Florida's high speed rail is progressing based on actual private investment. We'll see which gets built first, and still exists in 100 years: California's 19th century network between Bakersfield and Fresno, or one of the others between two closer metros, and that can actually compete with air-travel in speed and cost.
Not that high speed, but still... Turns out Texas and Florida are doing theirs private, California is doing their high speed rail by politician... Want to take bets which will get done faster, for less, and carry more passengers per population? At least ours has a better theme song... http://youtu.be/RMR5zf1J1Hs
Just the facts?
(1) There is no highway funding shortfall. From 1984-2012, the capital spending for roads and bridges rose nearly three times the inflation rate.
(2) If the infrastructure is crumbling and bridges are falling down, it's not because of too little money spent -- it's because they're not spending it well.
(3) The real problem? Congress stole about 20% of all monies from the highway trust fund to finance pet projects that have nothing to do with road maintenance (mass transit, bike paths, high speed rail, and so on). Less than 5% of commuters use those things (so expenditures are at least 4x what they should be), and many of those programs have increased congestion/pollution (like HoV lanes or light rail).
In the private sector you'd go to prison for such fraud -- in the public sector they expect to be rewarded with higher tax revenues.
The gas tax hike isn't about roads; it's about fraudulently diverting our money, then using the artificial shortfall to come back and take more of our money. (The same as our school, police and other systems that are running out of money, because much of the money isn't getting to them, and what is, is being poorly spent).
H/T Steve Buchanan.
We already paid for the roads, they diverted the money elsewhere... now they want to charge us again. The problem isn't the funding, but where it was, and wasn't being spent.
If insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result, the California democrats (both elected officials and voters) prove they should all be institutionalized, or at least be declared legally incompetent and have the important decisions made by anyone else. Priorities should be (in order of importance): Police, Fire, Infrastructure, Education, social engineering -- exactly backwards of Californias legislative priorities.
I'm pretty sure a chimp throwing feces at a wallboard with ideas on them, would make better decisions... because at least half the time, the answer wouldn't be to raise taxes to pay for things that were already paid for. (Which is at least twice as good as the democrats reaction to every problem).
Fascism is categorized by some as "right wing", because in Europe (historically), left and right isn't liberalism vs. conservatism, it often means individualism (left) vs. authoritarianism or collectivism (right). So by that definition, British and American Liberalism (Libertarianism) was considered left wing, and Fascism was right wing because it was authoritarian and collectivist (not individualist) - but that means Socialism and Communism are right wing well.
While in America, our terms reversed: individualists (libertarians, classical liberals, conservatives) tend to pool on the right, not the left, so the terms/meanings/roles are directly reversed. If Fascism is right wing in Europe, it's left wing in America (or they were using a different dimension to compare it on. The same way in America, Conservatism means go backwards: back when we had less government control, but in many European countries, conservatism can mean going back to when they had Monarchs and more authoritarian control. These terms don't translate as well as some people think.
There's a lot of other ways to look at right versus left wing: none of them show fascism to be a purely right wing belief system, while all show it to be a strongly left wing one (by American definitions).