Charging is currently on the order of 30 minutes, not hours, and it can take as little as a couple of minutes for a robot to swap out your batteries for fully charged ones. That is all with current technology.

While in such a situation we the people are in need of whistleblowers, it is not an easy thing to be one. I would imagine most people working for the NSA have families and people to care for and would have to weigh their responsibilities. Once the whistle is blown, as it fortunately has been by Snowden, it is our responsibility to put the pressure on our representatives to change the system. It is not for the rank and file to stop doing their job or put a wrench in the system when they are making efforts to ensure our security. You may not believe that the trade-off of privacy and security is worthwhile (and in fact neither do I, at least without proper transparency and oversight to prevent and rectify abuse), but it would be silly to say that having that information could have no benefit to security.

Now consider the possibility that there are people in the NSA that are specifically working to build a set of internal checks and balances in the accessing of such information. I do not find that sufficient as I believe those checks and balances must be transparent to the public, but that would take an act of Congress or the courts. So what is it exactly you want people working at the NSA to do? Perhaps you have some suggestions rather than just some "thoughts" meant to make people feel guilty?

First off, what you're talking about in terms of caricatures is politics. It's ugly, I don't like it, but it's gone on since the dawn of civilization and in my opinion has arguably grown worse recently primarily because of a mass media more interested in ratings than quality journalism, recent Republican gerrymandering successes, and a takeover of the Republican party by extremists. There are plenty of Democrats that have added to the problem, but I haven't seen them as a driving force in the breakdown in civility.

More importantly though is the question of how we get those in power to deal with the issues we really care about. What you're suggesting as a solution seems to be for people to go and vote for a third party candidate. That's all well and good in Pollyanna Land, but in the system we currently live in it would be about as effective as sticking your head in the sand. Running primary candidates is a step in the right direction, but it is very rare to see that against an incumbent in a presidential race. Even more rare are successes of such.

I choose to support, even if only with lukewarm praise, the best available candidate in any given race. I won't judge you for deciding to do otherwise, though I will say I think my decision is the best approach. Then I go and talk to people about possible long term solutions to the process that will make it possible to vote for people we actually like and make it less likely that we'll always have to just go with the lesser of two evils. If you didn't just jump to conclusions and had asked, you could have found out (without sounding like a major asshole) that I advocate for non-partisan redistricting, ranked choice voting for instant runoff elections, and campaign finance reform. These, among other related solutions, would go much farther than voting for another Ralph Nader like I did in 2000 (though I was voting in MD so I could afford that luxury). In this past election I would have loved to vote for Jill Stein, but my vote mattered far more this time as I reside in Virginia.

No, you look at the person's record and see whether it matches up with the grassroots movement that started using the term. Obama is somewhat progressive on some issues, and perhaps in his heart of hearts he's a progressive, but in terms of the array of issues important to progressives he's been perhaps a bit better than so-so. I think most progressives would agree he's made progress on LGBT issues, he provided some relief for people in terms of unemployment benefits, food stamps, and the payroll tax holiday, he did a decent job with the stimulus (though he did a horrible job talking about it), he kept his word about getting out of Iraq (mostly), and he's made some positive steps on the environment in terms of gas mileage standards. Certainly his appointment of Lisa Jackson is something progressives appreciate.

On the other hand progressives are not happy with his soft gloves with the banks and his inaction on relieving home owners (as challenging as it may have been), his sometimes ignoring climate change for political reasons, his support of indefinite detention and other restrictions on civil rights, and of course the particular issue of the parent article. His efforts on health care are appreciated, but the fact that he shut down any discussion of single payer right off the bat and then barely fought for a public option has left many progressives halfhearted in such appreciation.

I'm sure progressives would argue among themselves (or ourselves) about some of these and a few others, but suffice to say that I myself and many progressives with whom I've discussed or whose articles I've read very much believe that Obama has largely governed as a centrist on a variety of issues. And that's why I posted my initial response in the first place. The GP claimed that '"progressive" is just code for Democrat right wing neocon bastard pretending to be a peacenik', and I called BS.

I was trying to point out that you are inappropriately conflating "Democrat" with "progressive", not to mention Democratic representatives with Democratic voters. The Democrats are a varied bunch that includes progressives as well as centrists and the Blue Dogs as well (who are not centrists). Perhaps the ACLU would not specifically label themselves as progressive, but their positions on issues line up quite closely with organizations and people who do label themselves as progressive. Moreover, a variety of progressive groups have spoken out vocally against Obama and/or attempted to push him to act in a particular way when he was not acting or dragging his feet. See environmentalists and the LGBT community for plenty of examples. Except for in cases where the the DNC (or similar organization) is setting up an event to promote its candidate(s), it has been anything but a love-fest.

Oh wow, Dr. Fonik-Sonik, I'd love to see your research article showing how innate gender differences lead to disparate occupational outcomes! I'm sorry, did I lay that on too thick?

The fact that this comment was rated as insightful boggles my mind. I would posit a far more likely hypothesis: Interior designers are more likely to be females than males (and more likely to be homosexual males than heterosexual males) because that is what the gender norms in our culture suggest. A man who while young has an interest in topics relating to interior design will get any number of social cues to stay away and focus on other topics, the same way girls get such cues to do poorly in math and science. Cultural effects on gender are pretty huge. There may well be some innate features at play for all I know, but the point is I don't know and I'm not going to just assume it.

Also, I would kindly request you stop using your "#Bluntness" or other related phrases one might use in its place such as "I'm gonna just play devil's advocate here", "Let's be honest...", or "I'm not racist/sexist/etcist but...". You should feel free to be blunt, be a devil's advocate, attempt to have an honest conversation, and so on, but don't use those phrases as a way to get out of being responsible for poor or even damaging ideas and positions. In short, have a little bit of humility, especially when you're not an expert. It turns out you aren't superior just because you pulled some BS out of your butt.

That is an enormous load right there. There has been substantial push-back on this and other issues from the progressive community for years. Do you ever check out the ACLU efforts, articles on the Huffington Post and Rolling Stone, and reporting and discussion on The Young Turks or Democracy Now? And those are just the ones I actually check out every now and then. Obama is not nor has he ever been a progressive, and he's also never been a "peacenik". Do you actually know any progressives, or do you just read about them on Fox News or in articles linked by the Drudge Report or on NewsMax? Disgust can go both ways.

Unfortunately there are many issues that have taken up all the oxygen in the political landscape and made this particular issue one that just ends up largely ignored. It's easy to see why given that the Republicans are more than happy to have this sort of policy in place, and many Democratic representatives are (as usual) afraid to make hay (and of course some just don't care). Perhaps more importantly, it is even more difficult to challenge the president of your party when the other party is vehemently and religiously against your president and party just for existing. I do hope some Dems, and others, challenge the president on this and force him to work through the Congress to produce legislation with oversight and accountability, and I will be writing my reps (again), but I also won't be holding my breath.

It's made from cotton, which is sustainable, while polymers are made from fossil fuels. So, nah, I don't think it's time we stopped ;)

I don't know the detailed numbers, but it may be it did actually save money in Canada because the Canadian dollar bill was of poorer quality/value. The US dollar bill can stay in circulation considerably longer than any other bill in the world.

All true, but we also have the best dollar bill in the world. That is, it holds up for far longer than any other, long enough that even though each bill is more expensive to print it is more valuable than others in the world. From the Planet Money story:

"As to the question of why it made sense for other countries to switch from small denomination bills to coins, the answer seems to be: Their bills did not last nearly as long as U.S. bills. The Federal Reserve says typical lifetimes of bills from those countries were just three to six months."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/04/19/150976150/should-we-kill-the-dollar-bill

I can't remember for certain, but my sense was that they were taking into account the value of the coin based on the use of similarly valued coins in other nations. Can anyone comment on this?

Frankly I'd love to see dollar coins more in circulation, and I do use them whenever I can get my hands on them, but it seems like I'm not very representative. Regardless of how people would react or adapt to the dollar coin if made more available, I've just been dumbfounded at the utter lack of effort to actually get the coin out there. I listened to all of the Planet Money episodes about the dollar coins, particularly those piling up in government warehouses, and I couldn't help wondering where the signs were in banks to let people know they could ask for dollar coins. More than half the time when I request them at the bank someone has to go looking for them, and at least a quarter of the time they can't find any, or any more than a dozen or so. I mean, maybe people don't like the coins, but it's silly to use the argument that no one is asking for them to say they're unpopular if most people are simply unaware of them.

I'm surprised no one posted this sooner. Mod parent up informative! This is a vital part of the conversation. And I even like having some dollar coins around.

Fair enough. I certainly wouldn't argue that it is purely an insurance program, but it clearly does provide a form of insurance. It seems to me that it is the insurance aspect that has provided the basis for the argument not to privatize the program.

It's insurance against not having saved up enough for retirement, or for living longer than your savings could cover. This could be because you never made enough to save enough, you had bad luck (like a market downturn, investment gone bad, etc), or just poor judgement. That doesn't mean it is not a pay-as-you-go retirement plan as well, but there is certainly a very large insurance component. One might argue that we should then be means testing, which might be worthwhile, but others argue against it for strategic reasons as it could reduce the program's support.

While I would not completely rule out your scenario, let me go into more detail about why I see it as being far less likely. While an extremist Christian with sufficient support within the military (as opposed to some other type of extremist who probably does not have such a power base) may support the structure of our government, such a person/group might be spurred to action by a liberal administration that has held power for long enough and/or holds sufficient majorities in Congress. I would imagine these extremists acting in the interest of "restoring the Christian nation to the ideals of the Christian founders" or something like that.

On the other hand you have those in the military who have a better grasp on the Constitution and our nation's history and ideals. At some point in the future our government may degrade the system and its adherence to the Constitution sufficiently to provoke a coup of the sort you'd like to see. However we are nowhere near such a scenario because many people still believe that we can fix the government through traditional means (elections and political pressure). Moreover, there is great risk in a coup and so it would only be undertaken by such people in the scenario in which it is fully clear that traditional means will fail AND the current administration is clearly surpassing its Constitutional authority in an irreversible manner.

A coup would result in a standoff between parts of the military and in a divided nation could lead to serious bloodshed and martial law. The unknowns of such a scenario are so great that responsible individuals would be much less likely to make such an attempt compared with those of a more extremist attitude.