And that is the perfect argument for why science should not be funded by government.

I must be missing something here. The Washington Post originally claimed Al Gore said, "The hurricane scale used to be 1-5 and now they’re adding a 6." A correction was issues that claims he actually said, "The scientists are now adding category six to the hurricane....some are proposing we add category 6 to the hurricane scale that used to be 1-5." OK, but so what? Don't both statements essentially mean the same thing, even if the quote wasn't correct? Even worse, aren't both still false, as Chris Vaccaro, director of the National Weather Service’s office of public affairs, said in response, "No, we’re not pursuing any such change. I’m also not sure who VP Gore means by 'they.'"? So regardless of whether Al Gore was misquote, the result is the same - a false claim of adding a category six to the hurricane chart.

As another individual currently living in Maryland, I agree. If you come upon any effective efforts to oust her and those like her, I would be interesting in hearing about them.

Except that isn't what 'living, breathing document' means. You can check the Wikipedia article 'living constitution' for full details, but basically a 'living constitution' can be summed up as rules that are interpreted according to the current societal values. Under the rules of a 'living constitution', things like the thirteenth and nineteenth amendments are meaningless because 'liberty' and 'man' would be simply redefined to include those individuals previously excluded. In fact, the existence of procedures to amend the Constitution of the United States is exactly why the idea of it being a 'living constitution' is flawed. When the people realize something isn't right, the people should pass amendments to cover those scenarios. Of course, this requires a population that has a much better understanding of our government, such as the fact that an amendment process exists, and the federal government can only do things explicitly listed in the Constitution, and so on.

Whether I like it or not, I do expect foreign governments are (at least attempting) to watch any American citizen they have an interest in. That's the way spying and espionage works, and has worked for every country that is or has been in existence. If you honestly believe the UK does not have it's own intelligence services doing the exact same thing, then you are in for a very rude shock in the future. Hell, didn't you guys come up with James Bond, who is based in part on the very real life of Ian Fleming?

While prior to this point lack of resources have prevented foreign governments from collecting data on everyone, that is simply no longer the case. I suspect random bits of my internet history is sitting in many foreign governments' systems (and many foreign citizens' internet histories are sitting in American systems). However, there is a key differences between my government having my data and some foreign government having my data. The Chinese, Russian, UK, Australian, and other governments have very little control over me, and I don't have much control over them. So while I'm not really happy about it, I'm not really all that concerned about it either.

However, my government does have some control over me, and I it. That makes us, to some degree, adversaries. As the recent revelations about the IRS illegally targeting political groups contrary to the current government, there is reason for politicians to find information about me and use it to try to disenfranchise me, either directly by finding some act I have performed that can be construed as illegal, or else behind the scenes through blackmail, manipulation, or frustration. Further, the American constitution explicitly prevents collection of information about American citizens anywhere and anyone in America regardless of citizenship status, except in very specific circumstances (usually requiring a warrant) - something other countries don't necessarily have. So there are many reasons why I am okay with your privacy being violated by my government, and mine not. In a perfect world, I'd prefer no one's privacy being violated, but I don't live in a perfect world.

Of course, it is really hypocritical for a citizen of the UK complaining about privacy violations by a foreign government, given how your government has been increasing surveillance of their own citizens with very little outcry.

I won't speak for all gun rights advocates, but the ones I know don't use the comparison of cars to guns in reference to the restrictions - its gun control advocates who do that. When most (I won't presume to speak for all) gun rights advocates compares cars to guns, it is to point out the fact that if gun control advocates truly cared about saving lives, they would be equally as active in caring about car deaths, which are higher. Since they aren't, it is clear there must be something else that gun control advocates are concerned with in addition to (or instead of, depending on the specific individual) the deaths. So in context, it is a full comparison. The parent is essentially expanding the context further than the grandparent, and as I pointed out, there didn't seem to be any logic behind it, given that cars have more restrictions than guns, and yet cars cause more deaths, so where is the societal benefit to expanding car restrictions to guns? That is the kind of thinking I just can't comprehend.

You have a very odd definition of "exceptional". The total number of people who died or are injured due to mass shootings in the last ten years are fewer than the number of people who die in a single month due to car accidents. This is really no different than 9/11. Slashdot by and large seems to agree the government massively overreacted to that tragedy, and far more people died in that than in the mass shootings since then. Unless you think America's response to 9/11 has been reasonable, please explain to me why the rights of the people should be taken away for these tragedies but not the other?

I don't understand this kind of thinking - automobiles kill more people than guns do with those restrictions in place, and that is an argument in favor of implementing the same restrictions that automobiles have on guns? Why?

Or, rather than making this a false dichotomy, why not do both? There will always be things we can't deal with, so it is a stupid idea to put all our eggs in one basket. Equally, just because we have a backup plan doesn't mean we should ignore the current situation.

... than high speed internet? Dude, where the hell do you live? It sure as hell ain't anywhere I've ever heard about. I do also have to point out, it hasn't been one hundred years since the creation of the internet, yet you expect the same level of infrastructure to be in place after, what, some forty years?

Speaking a bit more on the article, as a resident in Maryland and 20 miles from DC, it's bullshit. The DC metro area has access to very high-speed broadband - some people just choose not to purchase it, which is a very different thing than the implication in the article. The worst case scenario is that the kids have to go to the local libraries to use it - or perhaps stay a bit later at the schools. There is no "bandwidth divide" going by the definition implied in the article.

Then why didn't the agent simply tell Arrington to do so? She should be far more familiar with the paperwork and process than he is. His suggestion was not unreasonable, but the agent's response sure as hell was.

Personally, "pulling troops out" sounds like evacuate completely, but politicians count on their supporters to jump through mental hoops (like you just did) to justify the vague things they say with what they actually do. Bush's supporters did the same. And like I said, there's still plenty more things he has been dishonest about.

Let's see, we are still in Iraq and Afghanistan, Guantanamo is still open, gas prices are still high... need I go on?

I don't suppose you have any evidence to back that up? Because I've got evidence against those claims.

Having grown up in the Bible Belt, I can tell you certain religious groups DO have objections to IDs with numbers on them. Specifically, one of the things they mentioned was that such things would be used to justify applying even more numbers to us, exactly as you are arguing here. I haven't checked, but I'm going to guess there was a lawsuit at some point in time (maybe multiple ones, since driver's licenses are state-issued) about the numbers on a driver's license, and it was probably shot down because the license is voluntary. (For the record, I am not religious, and I think the "mark of the beast" is pure quackery, but I equally find it delusional when someone pretends to to know the mind of another.)