zeraynor

Sound like they would be more expensive if the farmers didn't have such advantageous water rights.

I do understand the dangers of a government that can arbitrarily declare something a "state secret" and subsequently stifle speech on some arbitrary grounds.. but at the same time, can you recognize that there may be legitimate grounds to forbid dissemination of particular information on the grounds that it is advantageous to hostile entities, and thus a detriment to the US as a whole?

Based on your criteria I would consider the US support for a post-Hosni Mubarak government in Egypt perhaps counter-productive for US interests for the sake of democracy.

https://www.france24.com/en/20120715-egypt-clinton-urges-us-... https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/world/middleeast/egyptian...

I would also consider the continued humanitarian support of Afghanistan as not aligned with NATO corporate interests, broadly speaking. EDIT: As compared with the continued occupation of the country.

https://www.usaid.gov/news-information/press-releases/jun-28...

Double edit: Also as far as know European members of NATO hated the backtracking of American policy on Iran due to business interests. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-france-busin...

All I meant to say is that it is not an either/or situation. I acknowledge the United States engages in plenty of realpolitik that is hypocritical and runs counter to its supposed ideals. I think we should acknowledge that it is a topic whose breadth and complexity cannot be captured by a couple of forum posts.

I know great people, far better than myself, that have dedicated themselves to these ideals. I feel that it is a disservice to them and those ideals to write them off or discount their existence because of instances of hypocrisy in US policy. That is all I wished to communicate.

It's neither all "freedom and democracy" nor all "ruthless greed". Your post feels like kool aid in "ruthless greed" direction.

Government decisions are made by human beings in positions of power. Being in a position of power, such as the president of the United States, is a balancing of owns personal beliefs/morality and the interests of the United States. The composition of those components and the position of the pendulum in that balance varies depending on who you are.

Your position supposes nobody with ideals becomes members of government or that members of government somehow compartmentalize American cultural ideals/identity. Plenty of hypocrisy abounds, no doubt, but your take is overly cynical.

It does seem difficult balancing an open and free society with mechanisms for protecting and maintaining government secrets, and punishing those who betray those secrets.

Do you believe it is plainly unconstitutional simply because it posting to twitter involves words?

Then why does anyone get paid government-mandated minimum wage?

Given the vast majority of the population reside in urban/suburban areas perhaps you have a warped rural idea of what people use trucks for.

If housing was one of them you'd probably consider it a crisis.