ReluctantRedditor275

There was also the panel where they let an anti-vaxxer say whatever she wanted to in the name of "there's two sides to every story".

Jon Oliver made a good point about this concept. By putting one person from each side of an issue on tv, you make it look like support for the issue is divided roughly 50/50. So, in a conversation about climate change, he brought on 1 skeptic and like 100 climate scientists.

What, if anything is being done about being able to detect high drivers?

This is pretty much my one qualm against legalization. With alcohol, you can blow into a tube and the cop knows exactly* how drunk you are. With weed, they can see if you've smoked in the past few months, but outside of field tests, there's no reliable way to determine whether an individual is currently under the influence of marijuana. This presents real logistical problems in a world where weed is legal but driving under the influence thereof is presumably not.

*I realize that breathalyzers need regular calibration and that BAC is not necessarily a perfect indication of inebriation for all individuals, but it provides a fair bar against which all drivers can be judged.

But the British monarchy is popular and doesn't seem to do any harm. It is a largely symbolic role. For me the most important thing is that real power is with elected politicians.

This is a very important detail. While the concept of a monarchy might not comport with the 21st Century ideals of democracy, there is a cultural significance to the House of Windsor that is woven into what it means to be British. I have always suspected that this is a major reason why British democracy has been so successful absent a written constitution - the Queen or King serves as the role of "sovereign" in the sense that the U.S. Constitution does for America.

As it stands today, the monarch wields virtually no political power and poses no threat to the will of the people. Even its affront to meritocracy is minute. (No matter how hard you and I work, Ms. Beddoes, neither of us will ever be king or queen, but that's about the only potential denied to us by Her Majesty.)

It is noteworthy that other democracies with no history of monarchy have attempted to emulate the "figurehead of state" position through ceremonial presidencies (see: Italy, Israel, India, Greece, Germany). Personally, I've always found these arrangements to be a little silly, since it seems like they created a ceremonial figurehead for its own sake rather than deriving one from history, as the British have.

As an American, republicanism is a part of my DNA, but I suspect that had I been born English, I would be a fervent supporter of the Crown.

Loved the Expanse show. I should probably read the books.

I asked about war with China books because it seems to be an incredibly popular genre in Navy circles. For a light-hearted take, I recommend They Eat Puppies, Don't They? by Christopher Buckley.

So, that movie Chernobyl Diaries pretty much nailed it?