The lack of new nuclear power plants has little to do with environmentalists. Nuclear plants are a huge long-term investment—tens of billions of dollars—and the payback period is decades away. If long-term market prices change in an unfavorable way, you're screwed. For example, solar power has been following its own version of Moore's Law for some time now, so why on Earth would you build a nuclear plant if there's a good chance it will be eclipsed by the sun in twenty years? They used to make economic sense, but haven't since the 80s when oil prices plummeted. Since then, essentially the only actors willing to make the investment have been governments.

Congratulations, you tripped my bullshit alarm in the first ten words of your post. "The founders" were not a homogeneous wise group, and the Constitution is itself a series of compromises between many people with different viewpoints. Moreover, rampant use of the filibuster is a recent phenomenon spurred by a Senate rule change in the 1970s. Prior to that, it was used maybe once or twice a year, and simple majorities were required to pass most legislation.

No offense, but you sound like someone who get all their history from Glenn Beck.

With regards to basic science, pretty much. Don't worry, though: it's not unique to the U.S., and is the standard around the world. It's simply a reflection of the fact that private companies will not fund research that has no potential for profit in the next five years. A hundred and fifty years ago, only nobles could afford to do science because they could afford to fund their own research. Public funding really changed the game. In fact, the most prominent historical exception, Bell Labs, is the exception that proves the rule. It was able to insulate its scientists from profitability concerns because AT&T had such a strong monopoly, and was essentially quasi-governmental. When the monopoly went away, its star faded.

The system's also something of an artifact of the way in which scientists are trained. To do meaningful research, you have to get a Ph.D. and spend years slogging through grad school. Professors have no way of funding their own research and rely on grants to support their students. Grad school isn't like med school or law school, where the eventual earning potential is high enough to justify taking out massive loans.

There is not a single Democrat in Congress who has ever advocated the forced censorship or abolition of "hate speech." Where did you get this notion? (I see this sentiment a lot on Slashdot, but have never seen a shred of evidence other than the fact that they tend to be more politically correct.)

I am extremely skeptical of the anti-radiation alarmists, but don't dismiss the possibility of non-ionizing radiation doing damage out of hand. After all, microwaves are also non-ionizing.

It was something all Slashdot agreed on until the Obama administration started pushing for it.

Printing on paper is not the same as printing on plastic. Look at both under a microscope: paper looks like a pillowy fibrous material, while plastic still looks flat.

Besides, have you seen how the Senate operates these days? After one year in office, Obama hasn't even finished making low-level appointments because certain Republicans senators decided to put a blanket hold on all of his nominations.

Nothing passes the Senate anymore.

Contrary to popular belief, that rarely happens. Sometimes, last-minute amendments are added to already-long bills, and so the opposition party says, "This x-page bill was voted on less than a day after it was introduced!" In truth, the vast majority of the legislation has usually been debated for months.

Did I say that? My point is that there will be a public debate, and that debate will come when the negotiations are finished. As long as you don't know what's in the treaty, you're allowing yourself to be scared by a bogeyman. It's no different than Glenn Beck's rantings about how the Obama administration is supposedly directing FEMA to build concentration camps. If you have no proof of something, you shouldn't allow yourself to be scared by it.

I find it pathetic that your comment has been modded up, because it proves that you and several others have completely bought into the FUD surrounding ACTA. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: all treaties must be ratified in public by the Senate. I repeat, all treaties must be ratified in public by the Senate. There is no "treason" here because nothing has been voted on; if the ACTA negotiations are ever finished and it is presented before the Senate, it will automatically become public knowledge. These "leaked" documents that periodically appear are beyond worthless: we have no idea whether they're legitimate or not, so there's no reason to let yourself get worked up over it.

In all seriousness, "czar" is just an informal term that the media began using to describe these types of positions. Unfortunately, people who aren't very well-informed see the word and think that they represent some sort of communist plot to seize power. They really don't have any authority, and are ultimately just specialized advisors to the president.

Biden puts his foot in his mouth from time to time, but he was also the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee and was widely considered the Senate's foremost expert on foreign relations. I'm legitimately curious: what statements did he make that made him appear ignorant to you?

Except in this case, the subpoena was issued on January 30th, four days before Eric Holder was confirmed by the Senate. Obama had zero influence in this decision (direct or indirect), and the subpoena was rescinded a scant three weeks after Holder's installation.

The subpoena was issued on January 30th, Eric Holder was confirmed on February 3rd, and the subpoena was rescinded on February 25th. There are a lot of things you can criticize the Obama Justice Department for, but this is not one of them. Looks to me like they actually did solve this problem.