Questions: Society & Politics

Today I met my sister at the beach. She's 51, and I'm 45. We had a fun day walking the trails, swimming, and at one point we got on some public swings and acted like we were kids again. It was fun. Some people looked at us funny and laughed. What would you think if you saw some adults on the swings?

Yes? No? Maybe?

"Intel has been on the ropes after it missed several waves of innovation, including the smartphone and artificial intelligence revolutions"

No, they didn't "give us"... we bought it for $9 billion.

The Department of Homeland Security is now barring states and volunteer groups that receive government funds from helping undocumented immigrants, according to a Washington Post analysis of updated guidelines and interviews with Federal Emergency Management Agency employees.

Some members of the national volunteer disaster group network also questioned whether the new requirements are constitutional and point out that they seem to violate some local and state laws that prevent asking about a person’s immigration status.

By accepting the federal grants and awards, the new documents state, volunteer organizations that help after disasters must agree to not “operate any program that benefits illegal immigrants or incentivizes illegal immigration.”

That could put groups that provide food, housing, mental health support and other assistance in disaster-stricken states in the position of having to verify aid recipients legal status before providing assistance, experts said.

They are also barred from “harboring, concealing, or shielding from detection illegal aliens;” have to agree to “provide access to detainees, such as when an immigration officer seeks to interview a person who might be a removable alien;” and not leak or publicize an enforcement operation.

Several members raised concerns that federal contracts cannot make nonprofits violate local laws that protect people’s privacy. The bulk of disaster-volunteer groups that work with the federal government are also faith-based organizations, which some groups said could create constitutional concerns.

"First, the federal government has never attempted to tell the nonprofit sector who we can and cannot serve. Further, as a faith-based organization we have the right to determine who we serve.”

WWJD?

Pros of a monarchy.

● No social and political division.

● Government works much more efficiently and is more stable.

● Conditions of the country will be more secure and far less crime.

● Government will have the best available public officials holding important positions throughout the country.

Cons:

● Unfair treatment of others and political power can be abused (but totally depends on the king in authority.)

● Some freedoms most likely will be gone i. e. no publically criticizing the royal family or disrespecting social officials like police officers among others freedoms like gay parades, porn abortions etc.

Pros of a democracy.

● The general public gets to elect politicians that represent their own interests whether good or bad.

● Every few years the populous can ask for change of their representatives.

● Far more freedoms whether good or bad.

Cons:

● Causes social and political division.

● Giving the people the power to vote who don't understand how government nor how the economy, energy, security etc works in depth causes voting in the wrong people into positions of power.

● Government operates and government agendas are slow and work far less efficient.