Hmm, what to make of this one? Trolling? Naive? Paid shill? Pure sarcasm? It can be hard to tell these days!

And, as implied here, once we go cashless they've got us by the balls. People might not appreciate the value of easy, anonymous transactions until they're gone. Who are "they" you ask? Insert your favorite power structure. There is utility in being able to conduct private business without the need for any middle-man or money transfer service.

Remember what happened with Wikileaks donations and the credit card companies, when the latter started denying payment services for the former? Cash enables the average person to pay for or support things without permission. That's important if you want an empowered citizenry. I'll keep using cash, thanks.

We can certainly agree on that.

Getting people used to invasive authority?

What is the literal, non-interpreted meaning of "unusual punishment" or "unreasonable search"?

Good point! However, it is not being reported that way. It's being reported like Syrian and Yemeni terrorists (it's spreading!) have found a new way to be diabolical, so the TSA has stepped up security, so you'd better be careful and not run afoul of the TSA. That detail about it only being from certain countries is not being conveyed in the reporting I've seen.

Facebook's ability to do that is right there in the EULA. Yes, I actually read Facebook's EULA. Anything you post on the site is yours, but they enjoy the right to use it in any way they like while it's there. So this journalist agreed to let them do that when she signed up. She likely didn't know that, because who actually reads EULA's, right? It's one more reason I'm not on Facebook.

I'm not sure where you got my hope for my country to sabotage itself. That was not my intent. My point was that the reasons given publicly for our foreign policy actions are almost never the actual reasons. They are feel-good reasons that are designed to get the population to support the mission, even though they are lies.

I would love to have some influence on my country's foreign policy. However, foreign policy is deliberately insulated from the democratic process; always has been. So I can protest or write my congressman, but that's about it. And I would not expect much in the way of results from either action. The alternative would be to move to Washington DC and try to get directly involved. But I don't have the motivation to reorient my life like that. So I am left with trying to warn people on the Internet to not believe the reasons given the next time we go to war to liberate some population from some dictator that we supported up until he started doing things we didn't like.

It's already a real show. It's called Ridiculousness and it's on MTV.

Though I hate to admit it, I actually enjoy that show. But I realized a while back that it is essentially "Ow, My Balls". That knocked my self-regard down a peg.

Wouldn't it be nice if our leaders considered what kind of world they're contributing to rather than just what they need to do to advance their "interests"?

Unfortunately, it's been that way since the State Secrets doctrine was created.