Two-thirds agree that “government is usually inefficient and wasteful.” In 2009, that number was just 42 percent. Across a range of 15 issues (including privacy, drug policy, taxes, spending, health care, and more), neither party wins a majority of Millennials. About six in 10 believe that government regulators are the tools of the special interests they are supposed to police and that federal agencies routinely abuse their power. A solid majority (55 percent) says businesses are paying their fair share of taxes.

However, such crypto-libertarianism is countered by a very strong belief in the need for government to provide a safety net. Fully 70 percent say they believe in guaranteed housing, health care, and income for the country’s poorest people. When taxes are not mentioned, 54 percent of Millennials say they want a “larger government with more services” and just 44 percent say they want a “smaller government with fewer services” (these figures are in line with results from Pew).

Those percentages flip when Millennials are asked if they want a bigger government with more services even if it means paying higher taxes. In the latter case, 57 percent support smaller government and just 41 percent insist on bigger government—a finding that is consistent across gender and economic groups. They’re young, but they weren’t born yesterday. Millennials have a keen awareness that Social Security and Medicare are living on borrowed time and borrowed money and that today’s youth are unlikely to get anything out of such programs.

If there’s a unifying thought among Millennials, it’s that they want to be able to make decisions for themselves. Large, consistent majorities (even among self-identified Republicans) favor pot legalization and marriage equality and think that individuals should be allowed to eat trans fats, drink whatever size soda they want, gamble online, and smoke e-cigarettes in public places.

Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chairman Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) voiced his support Wednesday for the Obama administration's pick to lead the troubled Veterans Affairs Department, hinting at a smooth confirmation process.

Sanders labeled his hour-long Tuesday sit-down with former Procter & Gamble executive Robert McDonald “a really good meeting.”

“I was impressed by his devotion to veterans, by his service in the military, by his corporate service and knowledge of running a very, very large entity,” Sanders told reporters.

“I have a feeling he’s going to be a very good secretary at the VA,” he added.

McDonald worked at the Fortune 500 company for 33 years. A 1975 West Point graduate, he served for five years in the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division.

Liv Tyler is wearing her politics on her sleeve -- or rather, on her T-shirt. The Leftovers actress, 37, publicized her pick for the 2016 presidential election with a simple graphic top in a photoshoot with Violet Grey this week.

In the July issue, Tyler is shown in a relaxed white cotton T-shirt, which reads simply, "Hillary For President." The political top is the focal point of the photos, as the brunette star looks gorgeous with minimal makeup and her hair in loose waves.

In the extended interview, the actress is called "an unabashed supporter" of Hillary Clinton and the type of gender equality progress that she represents.

"I love women," Tyler told Violet Grey. "I'm intrigued by them. I think women are fascinating and complex."

Her support for rumored presidential candidate Clinton, 66, is a rare move for Tyler, who has largely stayed out of the political game while in the limelight.

The part I took in defense of captain Preston and the soldiers, procured me anxiety, and obloquy enough. It was, however, one of the most gallant, generous, manly and disinterested actions of my whole life, and one of the best pieces of service I ever rendered my country. Judgment of death against those soldiers would have been as foul a stain upon this country as the executions of the Quakers or witches, anciently.”

John Adams

It was the most controversial case of its day — the defense of the British soldiers accused of carrying out what would come to be known as the Boston Massacre. Amid the outrage and fury that followed the shooting, which resulted in the deaths of five colonists, one young Boston attorney courageously took the case to ensure that justice was served.

The presence of British troops, who had occupied Boston since 1768 in an effort to put down resistance to the Crown’s policy of taxation without representation, had been a source of mounting tension in the colonial city. Things came to a head on the snowy evening of March 5, 1770 when a small group of Bostonians gathered to taunt a British sentry. As the crowd grew into a mob of hundreds, several soldiers under the command of Captain Thomas Preston came to the assistance of the besieged sentry. Rocks and snowballs were thrown and soon the soldiers opened fire. When it was over, three civilians lay dead at the scene with two more mortally wounded.

With a public enraged by what they saw as an act of brutality by their British occupiers, Captain Preston and his men were indicted for murder by the colonial government. Because of the virulent anti-British sentiment in Boston, no lawyers in the city would agree to defend the soldiers, believing it would be the end of their legal careers. But John Adams, an outspoken critic of the British occupation, recognized the importance of a fair trial for the accused and agreed to represent them. Adams later wrote that he risked infamy and even death, and incurred much popular suspicion and prejudice, for the sense of duty he felt to offer the British soldiers an adequate defense.

The news: Newly leaked source code has revealed just what the NSA considers justification for storing your web browsing data indefinitely — and it probably didn't come from Edward Snowden.

Lena Kampf, Jacob Appelbaum and John Goetz (who are all associated with the Tor Project) wrote on the German site Tagessschau that they have seen the "deep packet inspection" rules used in the NSA's XKeyScore program to determine which targets are worthy of deep surveillance. The rules are much broader than the NSA would like you to believe; for example, the NSA targets anyone who searches for information online about Tails or Tor. Anyone using Tor is also flagged for long-term surveillance. People deemed worthy of such intensive surveillance never have their data removed from NSA servers.

What is the NSA trying to do? Their main goal seems to be separating the technological know-hows from folks who wouldn't know what an Onion router was if it hit them in the face. After making this distinction, the NSA will keep track of the former group, in case they ever become a potential threat. For example, the NSA is apparently keeping tabs on an anonymous email service hosted at MIT's Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. BetaBoston notes that it's not entirely clear whether XKeyScore was properly filtering out users from the "Five Eyes" nations (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United Kingdom and the United States) that officially aren't subject to surveillance.

As BoingBoing's Cory Doctorow writes:

"More importantly, this shows that the NSA uses "targeted surveillance" in a way that beggars common sense. It's a dead certainty that people who heard the NSA's reassurances about "targeting" its surveillance on people who were doing something suspicious didn't understand that the NSA meant people who'd looked up technical details about systems that are routinely discussed on the front page of every newspaper in the world."