I respect those who voluneteer for our armed forces, follow our duly elected civilian leaders, and protect our country. Even if that means they are deployed in cases which they may not agree with, or even are unjust/unwarranted. I respect them because it takes courage to volunteer for dangerous, low pay jobs in support of your country. I respect them even if I disagree with the politicians who sent them to war.

I consider myself conservative/libertarian, and despite my respect for the milatary, and in some capacities law enforcement, I absolutely believe that neither group is above the law.

1. There is absolutely no circumstance that comes to mind where it should be illegal for a civilian to record his/her own interaction with the police. If the police question/talk/harass/interrogate me, and I have the ability to record it, it should absolutely be protected 100%. If you are a member of law enforcement, you simply have no right to privacy with respect to the people you are interacting with. Furthermore, if you are properly enforcing the law, you have nothing to fear!

2. It should additionally be absolutely protected for third parties to record police interactions, as long as it occurs in a public forum -- streets, parks, building lobbies, open resturants, etc. A law enforcement official enforcing the law in a public forum has no expectation of privacy whatsoever, period.

Unfortunately, I see no long term path that can take us effectively towards this goal. Our best hope is a number of hard-fought battles in a federal court.

Take a look at the areas where FIOS competes with the cable companies. I live in such an area, and you will find that prices are down and features are up. Both Verizon and the cable companies try to one-up each other with internet speeds, tv packages and discounts.

While far from perfect competition, FIOS vs Cable really works out in the consumer's favor. In non-FIOS areas, the cable companies have far less of a motivation to compete.

If you touch the side of the detector, it goes off, and you have to walk through again. I suspect this is what happened.

To be fair, think of the alternative. Apple could have simply branded the screen "HD", the moniker-du-jour for the past couple years, even though it has no relation to HDTV or any other standard whatsoever.

At least they were mildly creative, unlike HD Radio, iPad "HD" apps, HTC HD, etc.

Let's be clear: Genetic testing is not the problem here -- on the contrary, I am sure there are many positive examples like yours where genetic testing has helped people. It's even okay for the government to mandate testing -- yes, there is a compelling public health interest.

The problem arises with the disclosure of the substance (dna itself) and results of this testing. The government has no claim to either beyond basic statistics of 'X cases of Y in Z area'. As a soon-to-be parent, I am outraged that the government will attempt to obtain personally identifiable DNA samples and testing results from my child without my consent or due process of law.

1) Defend the borders & provide for basic public saftey.
2) Deliver the mail
3) Build the roads
4) _Maybe_ provide public education
5) Collect enough tax renevue to do ONLY the above.

And thats it.

You see, I could agree with your argument regarding the validity of speed limits if these limits were always decided by engineers. There are sound civil engineering practices which determine the ideal speed limit for a given road. If engineers need people to slow down, they change the design of the road. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limit#85th_percentile_rule).

However, more often than not, the speed limits are set an arbitrary amount _below_ the ideal number. Multiple studies have shown that raising or lowering the speed limit by a significant amount on a given road does not affect the overall flow of traffic. Artificially low speed limits set by politicians simply criminilize the vast majority of the population and breed disrespect for the law.

Set the speed limits by sound engineering practices so that only the people who are truely going faster than a safe speed are in violation, and then come back to me and talk about stricter enforcement.