On what basis do you conclude that organic food is not about health? Look carefully at who conducted and funded any study which makes such claims. Then, look at exactly what they are asserting.

I've seen a study which analyzed the nutritional content of organic food vs. other food. i.e. vitamin and mineral content, and the conclusion was that there was no difference. However, the study did not take into account pesticide residue or any other harmful contents in the non-organic food.

If you seriously subscribe to that interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, then, by direct implication, the 1st Amendment applies only to word of mouth, the quill pen and the printing press. Also by implication, the 4th amendment would apply only to printed or hand written "papers".

Looking at the # of firearms-related deaths and assuming you can save those lives through gun bans is naive. People will find alternate means of committing suicide(leading cause of firearms-related deaths). Murderers will find other means to kill. Criminal gangs (a major source of gun violence) will ignore gun bans entirely.
Furthermore, you would leave the population completely vulnerable to armed criminals. That's not about saving lives, it's merely swapping one set of victims for another.

In one of Snowden's early public statements he said that one of his primary motivations was to inform the people of what the government was doing so that we could have a public discussion about it.

Does anyone think this vote would have happened without his actions?

In addition, ACLU has filed a new lawsuit against the NSA. An earlier lawsuit had been shot down on the grounds that they didn't have legal standing to sue because nobody could prove that they had been directly affected. Of course the proof could only come from government which refused to provide it. Now that we know more about what the NSA is doing, e.g. collecting data on ALL Verizon customers, the government might finally have to argue their case before a court and try to convince people that their actions are consistent with The Constitution.

Cheers to Edward Snowden, William Binney and alll of the other whistleblowers who have risked so much to reveal government malfeasance.

I was all for vaccinations until my state government decided that the government schools were going to administer them and that it was going to be mandatory.

If people want to believe or disbelieve the autism link and make an informed choice with their doctor, so be it. I draw the line when the plan is for schools to be sticking needles into kids' arms.

They've already used their extreme powers of fighting "terrorism" to go after the extreme wing of the environmental movement. Acts which, 20 years ago, would have been prosecuted as vandalism or arson are now "terrorism" because of political ideology.

I think they've taken this so far that anyone with libertarian or even conservative leaning ideology who wishes to make the government smaller could be considered a "terrorist". After all, if you want to cut the size of the federal government by 60%, are you not a "threat" to them? DHS and the CTC have already published documents about the "threat" of right wing extremists.

FYI, in Florida v. Jardines, the SCOTUS ruled that having a dog sniff around the outside of a house is an illegal search i.e. the dog's opinion cannot be treated as "probable cause" and cannot be used as evidence for the purpose of getting a search warrant.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/11-564

Unfortunately, in Kentucky v. King they ruled that if the cops smell weed and, after announcing their presence, hear sounds of you "destroying evidence", they can kick down your door.

Wrong. If there are "consequences" to the exercise of free speech then we, as a society, don't really have freedom of speech.

The fact that we have attempted to prohibit government from imposing these consequences is laudable. It's unfortunate that we don't embrace the same idea in a cultural sense.

I'm not a huge fan of OSC, but now I'm going to go see the film just to express my support for the idea that people shouldn't be financially persecuted for having unpopular opinions.

You might be interested in a book called "Progress and Poverty".

The fact that we've had such gains in productivity, especially from the Industrial Revolution to the present, but have also had a perpetual underclass of poor and homeless is rather perplexing.

The book is a theory attempting to explain the conundrum and some suggested public policy measures to address it. In brief, the author suggests that resource monopoly is the fundamental cause of unequal wealth distribution and therefore resources should be the focus of tax policy.

IANAP, but I was wondering if Google Glass might be a useful tool for assisting mental health professionals, especially with things like agoraphobia or anxiety disorders? If people could exactly replay the circumstances that triggered their anxiety, a professional might be in a better position to explain and replace dysfunctional patterns of thinking.
Of course other people's reactions to the fact that someone is wearing Google Glass hardware might be the very thing that exacerbates the anxiety, so maybe it's no good until it catches on.

I see no good reason why that shouldn't be the case. It's ridiculous that government gets to define a relationship called "marriage" and then empowers itself to make laws which affect people differently depending on whether or not they are in a "marriage".

If the law states that your "marriage partner" gets your SS benefits after you die, the law should be changed so that:

A) Nobody gets them.
or
B) Your designated beneficiary (whomever it is) gets them.

As I said, relationships between consenting adults should be none of the government's business. If a person wants to take multiple spouses and those spouses voluntarily enter into the relationship, it should be entirely up to the people involved.

Making up for past injustice is a huge can of worms, so I'm not going to jump on your proposal, but I would definitely support the repeal of any law banning polygamy.

Based on the video that was removed by YouTube and posted on LiveLeak, I thought he was trying to make a political point by filming people in public places, which is well within his rights.

If you look at some of his YouTube videos however, he's actually going inside buildings and pointing his camera at people through windows. Just being a jackass and probably violating trespass laws, especially after they ask him to leave.

It's weird that YouTube chose the one specific video to delete. The others are depicting actions which seem a lot more like harassment.

I don't recall the video you're talking about, but it's refreshing to hear about one case where a government employee was actually held accountable for wrongdoing. That's a rarity, especially in the federal government.

I don't find the ownership question to be a fundamental difference. There is a potential for abuse and only the nature of the abuse is in question.

My dislike for authority certainly influences my views. For one thing, I'm paying for the hardware and salaries of the government creeps. On another note, this guy running around with a camera can't kidnap and cage me if I do something he doesn't like.

Voluntary relationships between consenting adults are none of the government's F****** business!

It should be totally illegal for the government to discriminate against or give preferential treatment to anyone (including for tax or government benefit purposes) based on their personal relationships. Single people, married people, polygamists, homosexuals, heterosexuals or whomever, should all be EQUAL under the law.