I understand. I'm just saying that Stockholm Syndrome is very likely not a real thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

I completely agree that ICE, or anyone, having my tax info is a violation of my privacy and is of course total BS. However, as a legal worker in the US, I don't think ICE violating my privacy will push me toward the black market. Wouldn't moving from the legal workforce to the "black market" be a big risk on my part?

The federal government loves to play this 'it's only civil, not criminal, therefor a loser set of rules apply' to lots of things. Knowing it's an end run around rights people/lawyers/courts have still let them get away with it because they support the final outcome or because it simplifies the process.

> Why didn't people address God with "you"?

Even today, this tends to be the case in European languages that distinguish familiar and polite pronouns (what linguists call the T-V distinction). God tends to be an exception to the usual T-V rules.

The reason for this is that in all these languages, thou started out as simply the singular and you as the plural, with no politeness dimension at all. Using the plural pronoun (or third person pronouns, etc) for politeness was a fad that only spread around Europe in the Middle Ages (give or take).

Religious formulae, however, are generally extremely resistant to language change. This is a very consistent finding across the world; some of our best evidence in historical linguistics comes from religious texts (such as the Rigveda, the Avesta, etc). Religion tends to be, not surprisingly, a highly conservative and ritualised domain.

Thus, prayers in European languages with the T-V distinction generally retain the use of T forms when addressing God. There are all sorts of lovely folk explanations for this, but the real reason is basically just because prayers predate the T-V system altogether.

Now we only need the announcement of Deutsche Bahn to convert fully to electrical, abandoning the gas locomotives, paving the way to interact with more advanced railway nations like Poland.

> Unfair for some states to have to bear the burden.

Isn't this the counterargument? Why should the US disproportionately pay for world-benefiting research instead of Europe or China?

The answer, of course, is that other governments do also fund some research, but each government decides how much they want to spend and on what. Which applies as much to each individual state as it does to the federal government.

> California already bears a large burden and that's on top of subsidizing other states through federal taxes.

It sounds like you're arguing that cutting federal programs would benefit California, because then they would have that money to appropriate as they choose for themselves.

An excellent option is to use federalism as it was intended. If you want funding for certain medical research, have your state issue grants. There is nothing that requires it to be the federal government.

yes, the courts have been ruling, but the executive has been ignoring.