I think national standards are the entire problem. We shouldn't have national standards. For one, we're a nation of some 300-plus million people distributed across 50 states, with varying geography, cultures, industries, and so forth. Why would anyone think one size should fit all? It's funny how there is so much talk about "diversity" all the time and how great it is, but heaven forbid there should be diversity in education in this country. The federal government has no business in education. But apart from all that, centralization in a country like this poses another problem. It gives a single pressure point for every kind of political or ideological fad or bent. Anyone with an axe to grind, a chip on his or her shoulder, or just a run-of-the-mill "I know better than thou" complex has but a single pressure point to grab hold of to bend the country to his or her will. Today you may like who is behind this push for a de facto national curriculum. But tomorrow you may not be. What happens then?

I'm for competition, diversity, innovation, and freedom. The Common Core is antithetical to all that.

I hope I'm remembering this correctly, but haven't some people challenged the National Security Letters, only to have the FBI rescind them before the case comes to court, presumably because they fear having a court rule them unconstitutional?

I want to be sympathetic to your sentiment, but there is no one outside of the United States threatening our freedom. That's a fact. There is no one in the military fighting for our freedom. Granted, they may stand ready to defend our freedom, should a foreign threat materialize, but that's a different story.

Sadly, the real threat to our freedom is from within. It's from people in government who fancy themselves on the side of the angels and who think it's okay to bend or break the rules—a.k.a. the Constitution—to defend the "homeland." They're setting up the legal framework and law enforcement infrastructure that will completely obliterate the United States of America for good. What will be left is lines on a map claiming a heritage it has no right to.

It's not simply that they're "just doing their job." Some of them justify what they do that way. But some of them have convinced themselves that they're on the side of the angels. They catch "bad guys"—that's the simpleton phrase they use. So, anything they do is okay, because the ends justify the means.

What?! Do you like bad guys or something?

The average person cannot integrate anything so abstract and complicated as the need for constitutional restraints: meaning, why government power needs to be restrained, even if in the short run of particular cases the "inconvenience" of such restraints lets the "bad guys" get away. The only thing the average person is able to digest is so-called "patriotism," the fight of "good guys versus bad guys" (in this case, literally, cops and robbers), and the kind of chauvinism of association that allows them to believe that they and the other great bunch of guys on the job are hard at work doing good.

This kind of mentality can accommodate any kind of political circumstances just as happily as any other—America, Iran, Cuba, the old Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, or what have you. That's what's so scary.

and leaves phone on the bar

But for the fact that "blaming the victim" is currently considered a mean-spirited social faux pas, I would point out to you where your friend went wrong.

surely?

You must be new around here. Let me be the first to welcome you to the United States of America.

How about this? If it's secret it's not a trial.

The sad thing is that when one individual decides to blow the lid off the whole thing, a good number of Americans insist that "the law is the law" and that the first thing we need to do is get hold of him and hold him accountable. I say, let's start with the people in charge who are really putting this republic at risk and breaking the law every single day, from 9 to 5, and patting themselves on the back because, you know, they're catching "bad guys."

When we're done with them, then how about we turn our attention to Monsieur Snowden.

"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."

Setting up the infrastructure for a total surveillance state is simply beyond the pale. What Snowden has done is what any true American should have done. The machine that government is setting up must be stopped dead in its tracks while there is still time, or there will be no stopping it. And there will be no United States of America after that, only a spot on the map infringing a trademark. Snowden is a true patriot.

If King George had had the NSA, you'd all be speaking proper English.

Oh, yeah. He's living the life of Riley, in exile, over in Russia—where the toilets don't even flush. Surely, this was all a career move.

I find it remarkable that people fault Snowden for breaking the law but give a pass to the many in government, from the president and the last president on down, who break the law every day by operating unlawful, unconstitutional, un-American programs that put this entire nation and everything it stands for at risk in a way that no terrorist can. Let Obama stand trial. Let Bush. Let Cheney. Let the lawyers and cabinet members with their "secret interpretation" of the Patriot Act. Let Dianne Feinstein for her round-heeled sycophancy towards our intelligence agencies. Let that bastard Hayden and everyone else at the NSA. Let them all stand trial first.

Get your priorities straight. Snowden should stand trial no more than George Washington.

Let me guess...YOU live in the nation with the trustworthy government [...]

What's your point, seriously? Who cares! Look, I'm an American. I really don't give a shit what other countries do, and I don't care if they want to criticize us about this. It's really neither here nor there. Our government is doing something very wrong, something that undermines the whole American Experiment—irrevocably. That's the real topic of conversation here.

Frankly, with the way things are in this country, I hope it begins to pinch our wallets. It's the only way most Americans, from the corporate bigwigs to the politicians to the straphangers and soccer moms in the suburbs, ever take anything seriously. People need to wake up.

The question is, is the damage done greater than the damage prevented.

In a free country, such Utilitarian arguments take place only within the ruling principle of liberty. We don't weigh the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments against some kind of first year philosophy student's bullshit session. We've established a constitutional framework for very good reasons.

Those familiar with the C programming language will recognize that the first goto fail is bound to the if statement immediately preceding it; the second is executed unconditionally.

Sorry, but it needs to be said: this is sloppy, he-man coding. Is there a problem with using brackets? Is it your carpal tunnel syndrome? Are you charged by the keystroke?

This is how mistakes happen. For shame!