Maybe the stupid ones are those who think that the bean counters (as you put it) would win the day?

Or is it you with the political agenda?

Did you ever hear about this new invention? It runs on tubes, the inner-tubes I think it's called - and it's all the rage with the young'uns.

You have a point there. Strawberries have a lot of sugar (and in moderation) is healthy, But soda, twinkees and ice cream are not healthy. Both are fine as a compliment to one's diet, every once-in-a-while, but healthy is not the word I would use for them.

Why aren't they healthy because it doesn't seem as if it's adding anything to one's diet outside of calories.

Now if we were in the middle of the zombie apocalypse - bottles of concentrated calories (soda) would be very valuable indeed.

Oh! Was I supposed to read the article?

I guess it depends on what you consider to be healthy. A good peasant bread, cheese, tomatoes, olives and wine is what I consider to be healthy food. Eggs are healthy. The only food that is unhealthy are those pre-packaged with tons of salt, sugar and fat and have had all it's nutrients removed in the cooking and preserving stages.

Pasta and red sauce is healthy.
Roasted chicken is healthy.
Avocado is healthy.
Walnuts and almonds are healthy.

Sushi is healthy.

There's tons of delicious healthy stuff.

It's easy to get healthy food in the US. I don't know where you shop but from Maine to NY to SC to Texas to Oregon I've had no problem finding healthy food.

If that's the case then national Republicans and I have something we agree upon.

Re ab0rtion and g*y marriage - neither of those positions are matters of privacy (at least to it's opponents).

I'm pro-choice but socons consider it to be murder. Plain and simple murder. I'm one of the few people who isn't a social conservative who respects the fact that they are standing up to what they consider to be wrong. If you consider ab0rtion to be murder than you should stand up and try to do something about.

Re gay marriage -- I'm for g*y marriage but that to has nothing to do with privacy. It's the state giving legal privileges where none were given before. For instance opponents of b!gamy and p0lygamy have nothing to do with privacy.

Re TSA and NSA just about all my left-leaning friends are opposed to that as well.

Privacy will soon become a very contentious issue joining together different spectrums of the political world and may very well become a fault line in existing coalitions.

Work filters necessitated the above substitutions.

Maybe it's because the jacka$$es in charge don't do the obvious.

1. Separate hazardous waste from the rest.
2. Separate useful compost from the rest.

And then have paper, cans, and bottles all in a third. First things first. Separate the hazardous from the rest.

so, what you're saying is that national republicans are for privacy?

You pose an interesting question. Can one be free without privacy? Where government officials track and know the physical location of everyone; know when they get home; what they eat, read, spend their money on, watch on TV and everything else? Under such a watchful eye are you still a citizen of that society? Or are you something lower (maybe above a serf) but still not quit a citizen?

Just asking. I haven't an answer but I think an omnipresent state is almost indistinguishable from a police state.

I wouldn't call Britain, France, Norway (and others) as being a police state. But a police state also includes the scenario where citizens are micromanaged, are under the watchful and benevolent eye of the state apparatus AND they do not resist said micromanagement.

I see the US and the EU hurtling toward serfdom (as defined by Hayek)

Is there a difference between shooting an unarmed person fleeing the scene and having a shoot-out? I think so. I can't access these articles from work but simply tallying totals is not accurate. The phrase I reacted to was "gunning down civilians". That phrase implies something totally unwarranted. If the police are being fired, or they interfere in the course of a crime (say armed burglary) then those actions are not "gunning down civilians."

There would be a lot fewer shootings if the US police simply did not engage (as the French police simply do not engage in the banlieues.) If the French police did engage then there stats would sky rocket.

All the above does not mean that there isn't horrible actions done by the police; nor does it mean I excuse or condone those actions.

Do you have stats for that? In France what happens in the banlieues are, for the most part, unreported.

Yes we have gunning down of civilians? Give me figures comparing the US with Europe (from Norway to Greece and Iceland to Ukraine).

Bitcoin is traceable and is far more identifiable than most people realize.