I heard about this on the morning "news" program my wife watches while getting ready in the morning. And I can't help but be a bit concerned over it. Now, I do agree with the premise of protecting children from harm; but seizing all of the children within a community based on the abuse of an individual seems a bit overboard. Consider, just for a moment, how you would react if the authorities came into your home town and took all of the children, just because you have a criminal there? I do realize that it is not exactly equivalent, but I find it hard to believe that there is clear evidence of danger to all of the children in the FLDS community, which doesn't, at it's heart, rely on the religious belief of the sect. Is the danger really so eminent that allowing the children to stay with their families and imposing a certain level of monitoring not enough? Do we really want to allow targeting of unpopular religious beliefs? Do we really want a government in the position of deciding what beliefs are good or bad?

I will admit that I have not seen the evidence presented by the state, but I don't think it's public yet; at least some quick googling hasn't turned it up. Still, right now this doesn't pass the smell test.

This weekend, I went out to the rifle range with my wife, her parents, and a few friends. And it was, as always, a blast; at least until it began to snow. It was the first chance I had had to shoot my, new to me, M91/30 (receiver is stamped as 1943 manufacture). Also, one of my friends was bringing out his recently purchased 8mm Mauser.

We all met up at my home (being the most central and closest to the range). And while transferring the Mauser to my trunk (I was one of two driving), my friend came to the realization that he had forgotten the key to his gun lock. This, of course, was going to be a problem as his home was about an hour and a half away. The lock he had was the one which came with the rifle (California mandate, you buy a firearm, you buy a lock), and was the kind which had the cable going through the receiver.

Now, being a gun rights advocate, I tend to read a few web pages about firearms and firearms safety. I immediately remembered this gem. Wherein an eleven year old kid demonstrates to us how to open most common gun locks on the market, and the article goes on to show the primary failing with the cable locks. Five minutes later, most of which was taken up pulling out the pliers and explaining to my wife that we didn't really have another good workaround; the lock was in pieces and the rifle was good to go. No worries anyone, I have an extra cable lock for my friend.

I'm not big on gun locks to begin with. They provide a false sense of security, and prevent you from actually getting to a firearm quickly should you need to. That said, if you are going to use one, spend a bit more money and get a better one. The cable locks are hardly a deterrent and can be bypassed very quickly. If you have one to prevent your children from accessing your firearms, replace it with something more robust. The amount of time to bypass it was minimal, and the amount of force I used was well within the range of a child. And, most likely, you child knows where the pliers are and can find this information really quick.

I went out to lunch with a few of the people from my office today. As we pulled into a parking spot, we nearly ran over someone standing around in the parking lot who didn't seem to have the good sense to get out of the way of a several thousand pound moving object. Fortunately, his friend alerted him to the problem and we were able to park. As we got out of the car, my wife called and I stepped aside to talk with her quickly.

While I was separated, the guy we had nearly run over asked my compatriots if they would care to see something amazing. Thank Dog that this is Southern California and someone wearing a trench coat would be an immediate tip off of a wierdo, so this guy in pants and a polo shirt wasn't likely to be a flasher. I am told that at this point he started pitching his amazing "Perfect Water". And that he could demonstrate on one of us it's amazing properties.

Now, I should stop here an mention that the group of people with whom I was having lunch are essentially the "geek squad" of our office. Including me, we had one programmer, two IT guys and a GIS tech. There's not a one among us who doesn't hit Snopes on a semi-regular basis. So, needless to say, the needle on everyone's bullshit meter was already buried in the 'BS' side.

As part of the demonstration the salesman needed a volunteer. Now, with the BS meters spinning widly, no one was willing to step up. And then I hung up the phone and came back to the conversation and was volunteered by my co-workers. Now, I'm not one to pass up a good show, and as soon as I got filled in, my BS meter went off. But, I figured, what the hell? If this is a trick to try and rob me, I felt that we had physical superiority (3 on 2 assuming I was incapacitated quickly). And by this time, I expected that the guy was a con man and not a mugger. So, I said, "sure".

So, here's the demonstration in a nutshell: First, I stand with my feet together, hands at my sides with my hands cupped backwards. The salesman then proceeds to push down on my hands and I try and stay straight. Unsurprisingly, without too much pushing, I begin to tip and have to move my foot out to retain my balance. He then does it on the other side of me, just in case I am left handed.

Now, he pours me out a little bit of this "Perfect Water", into a plastic cup, from an already open bottle in a plastic bag. The bag was certainly tacky, and it was obvious that the bottle had a printed label on it; which, to his credit, said "Perfect Water" on it in big orange letters. Not being utterly stupid, I first smell the water, then take a tiny sip to taste it. Nothing obviously amiss. So, I let myself be a little stupid and drank the small amount of water. By this point, I'm fairly certain that the guy is just selling tap water in a fancy bottle, not trying to poison me.

And the test with me standing there holding my hands down is repeated. And he is no longer able to tip me off balance, Amazing!1!one

And, of course, the guy is extolling the virtues of "Perfect Water" the whole time. Why they use Micro-bonding to infuse the water with extra oxygen, which makes you smarter, stronger and more flexible. It gives it this amazing H2O6 structure! (Hey, no snickering in the cheap seats)

Ok, let me stop being snarky for a second here. Let us assume for one drug induced moment that his claim is true; that somehow they managed to make this amazing H2O6 molecule. And that having all of that extra oxygen would do amazing things for my strength and balance. There is still no way that I could have gone from drinking the water to having the effects of it within a minute and a half, about the time between my drinking it and the second run of the test. The human metabolism just isn't that fast. I'm willing to bet that the water had barely had time to diffuse within my stomach acid at that point, let alone be absorbed. If this had been an inhaler, maybe I could have gotten effects that fast; the lungs being a gas exchange system with your blood. But there is just no way that anything I drank had that fast of an effect on me.

Back to being snarky. Let's also consider this magical H2O6. I'm guessing that in a controlled lab environment that it may be possible to force this configuration for a very limited time, no way is it gonna be stable. Moreover, I doubt it's going to be good to have in the human body. Just adding more Oxygen to a molecule isn't going to make it better. For example, water is H2O and is a useful thing in the body. H2O2 is hydrogen peroxide, and it's actually a waste product in our bodies. H2O2 is also unstable and will decompose into 2(H2O) + O2. So, this guy's claim is that they are mass producing a chain of 6 Oxygen atoms with two Hydrogen atoms hanging off the ends, and that this is good for me to drink and stable enough to bottle and sell. Could someone send me a new BS meter needle, mine has fused itself to the 'Yes' side of the meter?

So, why did his demonstration work? And it did "work", I didn't lose my balance the second time. Simple, really, it's all in the angle. The first time he pushed down and possibly out a bit The second time he push towards my body. In the first case, he moved the center of gravity of the system away from my feet, in the second he moved it towards my feet. Also, the second time he induced a shaking in his arm, and lifted his foot, as if he was pushing really hard, he wasn't. It's a BS trick of the mind, and the hope that I won't notice the shift in angle. And, to his credit, I couldn't really feel the difference in angle, but given that my concentration is taken up just trying to stay up that's easy to explain. My co-workers were able to see the difference.

Of course, now that we are all sufficiently amazed the real sales pitch starts. He has an exclusive, expensive, amazing deal to distribute this product directly. His friend is actually just a local high school coach who happens to be there. And he wants us to get in on the ground floor of selling this amazing product.

Now, had we had any other audience, I would have called him on his bullshit. The last thing I would have wanted was for him to use us to make a sale. But, as it was just us, I didn't bother. The guy either knows it's bullshit or is so deluded as to not be worth the trouble. Arguing with him would have done nothing. Instead, we each took one of his cards and politely thanked him and left. For my part, he tried to get a phone number so that he could contact me. I simply lied that I was in the middle of changing numbers and that I would email him. (don't call us, we'll call you. Three days after never).

The fortunate thing is that I was able to get his card, which has his website. Now, this is slick looking. And they have lots of "health and fitness" stuff, and lots of other snake oil...er, products as well. If you are looking for a good laugh, let me point you to the PDF of this "Perfect Water". It's full of amazing "sciency" claims. Granted, it doesn't make the H2O6 claim that our local snake oil salesman did, it just references "MBO(TM)". In the end, it's still bullshit.

Obviously, we all know what occurred on the infamous '9/11'. Personally, I find the use of the date as some sort of magical reference to be absurd. I've long since given up calling it that, and instead simply refer to it as the destruction of for the World Trade Center. One of the primary reasons I do this is that I do not think that it is really such a special occurrence that it warrants a special name.

Still here? Ok, I'll explain why I feel this way. First and foremost, this was not the first terrorist style attack on the US; nor even the WTC itself. Back in 1993 the WTC was bombed but did not collapse. This event is usually only referenced as the WTC bombing, not as 2/23. Granted, 2/23 doesn't have quite the same ring as 9/11, but it would be much the same in usage. Attaching special meaning to the date seems to me to be over the top.

Second, the act itself was not all that out of place; though it did represent a change in tactics. Airplane hijackings were not new. Bombings were not new. All that was done was that the two were combined effectively, though it was the plane itself which became the bomb. Moreover, the idea that the US and its citizens were regularly targeted by terrorist groups was not a surprise either, Clinton didn't exactly order missile attacks on empty patches of desert in Afghanistan. It should not have been a surprise that they would stage attacks on US soil, Al Queda and other groups did sort of say that was exactly what they wanted to do.

Third, the actual collapse of the towers seems to have just been a stroke of luck. Now, I know we have tapes of Bin Laden saying that he planned it, but, bullshit. I'm going to lay money on him seeing it happen and just claiming that he planned it to make himself look that much bigger than life; he may have thought about it and hoped for it, but I doubt it was fully expected. The towers collapsing was a rather amazing confluence of circumstances. The fact that the burning jet fuel actually managed to get hot enough to weaken the tower's structure, and that it did so on enough supports to cause the building to pancake, just defies belief; but sometimes the one in a million roll actually does come up.

Considering the determination of the people attacking the US, they were bound to get lucky eventually. We will probably never know how many attacks the CIA/FBI et. al. had thwarted prior to the destruction of the WTC. The problem is that, as the defense, the CIA had to be right every time; the attackers only had to be lucky once. It was almost inevitable that one of the attacks would get through at some point. And, with the openness of the US society, it amazes me more that we hadn't seen more attacks before that.

Which brings me to my last point about the whole thing: the complacency of the US citizenry. In the US, we have been spoon-fed a mind set of non-involvement and non-confrontation so long that it seems odd now when someone steps outside that. We believe that by not getting involved, by giving criminals what they want, that we won't be hurt and it will be OK. What if what the criminal wants is to kill you, are you still going to be OK? And that is the reason everyone on the two planes which hit the WTC, and the plane which hit the Pentagon, died. I would even go so far as to say that the plane which crashed in Pennsylvania had the same problem.

I think the first three planes are obvious. Six people with box-cutters were able to control an entire plane full of people. Ok, a box-cutter can give you a nasty cut, and applied right it will kill you. I would still lay money on a plane full of people taking out six with box-cutters in rather short order. But the conventional wisdom was that, if your plane is hijacked, just sit there and hope the people who have shown no respect for you or the laws don't hurt you, and wait for the authorities to handle it. And that is what the people on three of the planes did. And they were meekly flown to a fiery death on the side of a building, but hey, hopefully the authorities will be able to sort it out soon.

On the fourth plane, a curious thing happened. The people on the plane realized that they were dead, they just hadn't arrived at their grave yet; and they fought back. Now, we won't know exactly what happened on that plane, but I think we can safely assume that it's target was not a field in rural Pennsylvania, the terrorists seemed to be interested in more high profile targets that day. Obviously, the people fighting back did something which disrupted the plans of the hijackers. Now wait, you say, the people on the plane still died. Of course they did, they also didn't start fighting until well after the hijackers were in control of the airplane. And this is why I claim that the 'don't resist' mentality got them killed as well. The time for them to fight was when the hijackers first revealed their intentions to take the plane. Would it have saved them? Maybe, maybe not; but, it would have been a better chance than with a suicidal maniac already at the controls. Moreover, the fighting they did do resulted in the plane not killing anyone else. Sucks if you are the one who dies, but at least your death saved the lives of others.

Personally, I feel that the destruction of the World Trade Center was horrible, any innocent death is. But, it is not something which we should be making decisions about our country on. And it is not something which we need to raise a particular day to mythic status over. It was bad luck and a demonstration of the law of averages. If the attackers keep trying long enough, eventually they are going to get one through. And this applies no matter how far we lock our society down, there will always be gaps. You will never have the police everywhere at once, it's just physically impossible.

I feel that the only rational response is to realize that living in a free society caries with it some risk. There will always be the possibility that someone will abuse those freedoms to hurt others. But we must all accept the responsibility of looking after ourselves and looking after our society, or we will lose the freedom we hold so dear. Each of us must be willing to stand up and fight the worst of criminals, and accept that we might lose. The alternative is to give our freedom over to those criminals, and allow them to run roughshod over us at their pleasure. Or worse, to give our freedom over to some nebulous authority and hope that it never becomes corrupt; for, once it does it will be far worse to us that the criminals we asked it to protect us against. Each of us must realize that our freedom does not rest on some document, but on our own willingness to keep it and our willingness to help others keep it.

This last bit was the true failure and tragedy of the 'don't resist' mentality. The WTC was destroyed by criminals who should have been stopped by the people around them, but they weren't. And the people who died in the WTC itself never had a chance, because their fellow citizens were not willing to fight. The people who died in the building never had a chance to fight, because their countrymen sold them out to the criminals on the vain hope that they wouldn't be hurt.

I won't advocate that one should fight or die over every little crime. There is no point throwing one's life away when the criminal really and truly has us over a barrel. But we should consider it, we should make that decision every time and never give in to the 'don't resist' mentality, it is a mentality which can only lead to a society run by criminals.

I came to the realization that it's nearly a month on and my last journal entry is still proudly proclaiming 'Merry Christmas'. While I still do hope everyone enjoyed their Christmas and New Years, it's starting to get to that point of, "why the hell do they still have their Christmas lights up?"
Unfortunately, I've nothing to really write about so I though I would just add a link I picked up on Fark (in the comments of all places) and recommend taking the time to read it when you feel like humanity is doing ok. So, here ya go:
Who Goes Nazi [Dorothy Thompson, Harper Magazine , August 1941] (No, the date is not a typo)

With the coming of Christmas, and the apparent fact that a few people actually read the crap I write, I wanted to take a moment to say Merry Christmas to everyone or whatever your particular religious overtones for the celebration of the Winter Solstice would say.

If you've read my journal for any length of time, you'll know that I'm not Christian, nor really religious at all. Fact is I'm probably best described as Agnostic. Still, Christmas is fun, and I see no reason to kill a good thing. Let's face it, the "traditional" Christmas (if there is such a thing) involves so many non-Christian and, in my view anti-Christian, things that it's kind of silly to be fighting over it.

This year I am going to light up the Christmas Tree (Thank you Germanic and Norse Pagan traditions) and put a few brightly wrapped presents under it (ala Saturnalia, Pax Imperium and all). Given that I live in Southern California, I expect that I will have to forgo the usual bundling up by the Yule Log (once again the Northern Pagans invade), as it doesn't get cold here. And I'll wait for the arrival of Klaus in the Cinders..er, Santa Claus....or, St. Nick, ya that's it.

The thing that always gets me about Christmas is the insane materialism which is expressed. It's all about having the right present; or, at the very least some sort of present. For goodness sake, people fight over toys at Christmas. Just going by the bumper sticker WWJD? I'm willing to bet that he wouldn't have punched someone in the face over a Tickle Me Elmo. More likely, he'd have gotten pissed that the whole "celebration of his birth" had been turned into one big profiteering festival. My fuzzy recollections of Sunday School (yes, I wasn't always a godless heathen) seem to include something about him going into the temple and raising holy hell about the market being run in it. WWJD? My guess is that it would look a heck of a lot like the Jehovah Witness version of Christmas.

Have I gotten caught up in it? You bet, I've been doing everything I can to get my wife the right present. Fortunately, this seems to be resolved, so I can relax on that part. Besides which, I was only willing to spend time and money, I wasn't going to get into a fight over it; it's not that important.

I'm also lucky in that my circle of close friends and I have finally figured out that exchanging gift cards is stupid. For the past several years, we have each bought each other gift cards (usually to the same damn store) and passed them around. Instead, we are going to go out, have dinner together, say Merry Christmas and then go see I am Legend. The cost will be similar, the restaurant is about $50 per person. But it will be much better overall.

Also, I once again failed to convince my family that I really don't need any more shit. Usually around Thanksgiving my family starts asking for my "list". With the volume of requests increasing as Christmas approaches. Though, to be honest, I was able to come up with one pretty easily this year. So, I have no reason to complain and every reason to be thankful. I have already received one of my gifts, but I imagine that there will be quite a bit left to open on Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, and the other day we are celebrating Christmas (need to check with the wife on when that was again). I swear, one day I am going to figure out a way to consolidate Christmas in my family to one day; though, that may simply be a matter of time as diabetes has been slowly reducing my list of people to buy for.

So, on that happy note: Merry Christmas to all, and I hope you have a pleasantly drunken New Year. (that is why we care about it, right?)

While my job and much of my life revolve around technology, I have always been a troglodyte when it comes to cell phones. I went through the phases of, "Hell No!", "It's too expensive.", "Ok, but no one gets the number.", to finally "Must have, but just a phone, dammit."

In truth, I'm still mostly in the "Just a phone, dammit" stage. I could give two shits about a camera on my phone, but it seems unavoidable these days. My current phone's camera has a wonderful library of pictures of the inside of my pocket.

<rant mode=on> <--! Skip this section if you are offended by profanity or just don't care to listen to me complain !-->
I have always bought, or tried to buy, clamshell design phones. I carry my phone in my pocket and like most geeks my pockets are a treasure trove of junk. I have no doubt about the ability of that trove to cause damage to a cell phone's screen. So, my solution is a clamshell to protect the screen. So what do manufacturers do? They put a fucking screen on the outside of the clamshell, great job, now I still have to worry about a cracked screen. Which, I have actually managed to do.

Also, the second reason for a clamshell, is that the buttons don't get pressed by the afore mentioned trove of junk. The volume button on the outside is ok, it's usually disabled when the clamshell is closed, but the camera button is annoying. Why the hell do I need to be able to take pictures with the clamshell closed? There are days where I am tempted to just rip the damn button out, but I never know when that camera will actually serve a purpose. Also, I don't really like causing damage to my electronics. Hence the choice of the clamshell, the closed plastic shell at least provides a modicum protection to the screen, buttons and other parts which might get damaged by a wayward pocket knife. So, when looking at my current choices, as Penn might say, "Fuck!"

</rant>

Anyhoo... I'm slowly reaching the point where I am graduating from "Just a phone, dammit" stage to the "full on gadget addict" stage. I've been supporting a windows mobile phone for a while, and while I bitch about it constantly, the idea is actually pretty cool. I do believe that the technology is not quite there yet for mass adoption, but its getting close. I still have too many instances of things getting out of sync, or just not syncing for me to be willing to hand this type of thing to anyone; but, for those that are willing to deal with a few hiccups here and there, it's actually pretty cool.

So, I'm looking at my next phone upgrade (yes, I'm stuck in one of those stupid contract cycles: upgrade, extend, upgrade, extend) and have decided that I want to get a smartphone on the next upgrade cycle. I figure I have the following requirements:

• AT&T network - This is where my contract lies, and I am happy enough with them to stay with them.
• Windows Mobile platform - Yes, I could do IMAP or POP3 for my email, but I want my calendar as well. And I'm not going to ftuz around with trying to get my Exchange calendar to link up to an iCal or some such setup. Exchange calendars are enough of a house of cards by themselves, without adding any more layers to break. So, I need Pocket Outlook and therefore need Windows Mobile.
• 802.11b/g connectivity - I'm willing to go with an add-on card for this if I have to.
• Bluetooth - this means file transfers as well. My current phone has Bluetooth, sort of, but it's crippled to the point that it can only connect to a headset and nothing else.
• Voice Dial - Another amazing facet of my current phone, it supports Bluetooth headsets, but does not have voice dial. WTF, over?
• Full QWERTY keyboard - Email on a phone number pad...eww.

So, not that demanding, right? I'm even willing to give up the clamshell. Afterall, it's not like it's doing anything useful for me anymore. So, what, if anything, would people recommend? I've seen the AT&T tilt online and want to get my hands on one to play with, but is there anything better?

I love it when a plan comes together.
Now if I could have one do it in recent memory. Thanks to a late interviewee, the whole camping trip started off late. Not really a problem, but annoying as it meant that we were searching the campground for an open site in the dark, and setting up tents by lantern light. Oh well, we did get a good spot, and all of us are used to setting up in the dark, as we tend to go on Fridays after work. It's rather amazing, with 125 sites in that particular campground, and several more campgrounds in the park, it was still near capacity.

The trip itself was a success. We setup late Friday, and cooked dinner on the camp fire. My personal belief is that all camp food must be cookible on the camp fire, unless it's breakfast, in which case eggs and bacon on the Coleman stove is acceptable. After all, when else can you get away with scrambled eggs cooked in the bacon grease? Dinners are usually either hamburgers or cheddar-wurst. For those that don't know the artery hardening goodness: cheddar-wurst are essentially polish sausage with cheddar cheese injected into them; tasty and very bad for you. Also, the first bite should be done gingerly as molten cheese tends to squirt our if you aren't careful.

An aside here. I love cheese. I really love cheese. I expect that when I die, they will cut me open on the autopsy table and find an arterial block of cheddar. Yes, it's bad for me. Yes, it makes losing weight harder. Fuck ya'all I'm gonna to have my cheese.

Ahem, where was I? Oh yes, Friday night. So, as is usual, we stay up late chatting around the campfire and get to see a few meteors. Also, I take a few moments to find the North Star to get myself oriented and sometime after midnight, Leo came up so I was able to make sure that we had a good view for the Leonids on Saturday night.

For Saturday the plan was to sleep in, and technically 8am is sleeping in for most of us, but it meant that staying up late might be difficult. Problem is, I tend to sync my sleep/wake cycle with the sun when camping; not intentionally, but it happens. So, we headed over to the 49 Palms Oasis and did the 1.5 mile hike in, enjoyed the oddity of having palm trees springing out of the middle of the High Desert without water being piped in, and hiked back out. The rest of the day was spent playing Phase 10 and Settlers of Catan, both of which I managed to win (yay me!).

Dinner that night included the ever popular foil wrapped potatoes in the camp fire, which came out pretty darn good. After dinner, we sat around the campfire and chatted until about 8:30, when most of us took a nap. Got up at 1am, and bundled up.

The meteor shower was, as expected, mediocre. In the two hours of watching we probably saw 20 or so meteors. We had a few good ones, but nothing spectacular. Overall, it was still nice and I enjoyed it in the way that a kid who wanted to be an astronaut enjoys anything "spacey".

Sunday was pack up, go visit the Jumping Cholla Garden and leave. The garden is pretty impressive. I had seen it before a number of years ago, and had insisted everyone see it. It was everything I remembered and there are now a few more people in the world who are rightfully impressed by it. There is also one more child in the world who appreciates the need to keep one's distance from said Jumping Cholla. This was evidenced by the poor kid screaming bloody murder as his parents (I assume) picked spines out of him. He was not part of our group, but it would seem that he managed to get off the trail (mistake 1) and brushed up near one of the cactus (mistake 2). Now, there is a reason they are called "Jumping" Cholla. While they do not, technically, jump, if you brush against one you are going to get several spines embedded in you. These spines are barbed, and get in deep pretty quick. Even had the kid not made mistake 1, the path still requires you to pay attention, as the cactus are right up against, and occasionally in the middle, of the trail. And removing them hurts, a lot. In fact there is a sign at the start of the trail, which directly warns you to not touch and that the spines hurt to remove. A note to all parents: if there is a big sign with big letters in red on it warning you about the dangers of something, do not let your kids run around.

All said, the trip was a success. We didn't get to see as many meteors as I had hoped for, but we did get to see quite a few which is rare for us (damn city lights). It was cold, but we had a fire and clothes to deal with it. Also, the mummy bags my wife and I have are very good so neither of us had a problem with being cold at night. Daylight was at a premium and we didn't get to visit everything we would have liked to; but we did get to see a number of great sights. And, we got to burn some wood, enjoy the sound of nature, and enjoy the company of good friends. And that is something I would happily spend a weekend doing anytime.

I do, occasionally, like to get out and breathe fresh air. So, this weekend I am using a contrived excuse of going to see the Leonid meteor shower, as a way to get people together to go camping. The shower is supposed to peak in the wee hours of the morning on Sunday (PST). While this year is not predicted to be a spectacular year, nor are the viewing conditions going to be perfect; what the hell, it only happens once a year, and it is still fun to see a few meteors in the sky. And a bad day camping beats the hell out of a good day most other places.
So, I am going to be heading out Friday afternoon with my wife and a few friends to Joshua Tree National Monument. Exactly when depends on when I get done with the interviews that I have to sit in on for work. Setup and relax for the evening. Hopefully, there won't be any fire restrictions, so we can have a camp fire. After all, it's not camping if you aren't burning stuff. Besides which, it's going to be cold, so a fire is damn near a necessity. Saturday, I hope to sleep in, and then we'll probably play games (Phase 10 and Settlers of Catan go everywhere with us) or maybe hike a bit; and, just generally enjoy being nowhere near civilization. That night we'll stay up and watch the show, and then break camp and go home Sunday. Gonna be cold, but it should be a lot of fun.
Anyone else got plans for the meteor shower?

Ok, so I rambled quite a bit about the military, essentially stating that my current belief is that we need to abolish the standing military, in favor of a militia system. As with any massive change idea, the problem would be in getting from what we have now to where I want to be.

The US has a standing military of about 1.5 million people. This is a large number of people who would be left jobless in the event that the military was to be disbanded tomorrow. And 1.5 million people, out of work, and without any other profession, would be a disaster waiting to happen. So, any such change would have to happen over a long period of time; I'd personally say about 20 years.

While Machiavelli called anyone who would take war as their profession evil, I don't think this is quite true. Though this could also be an artifact of translation and a change is usage, so he may not have meant is as such. Most of the folks I have met, who are members of our military have been good people, who have bought into the idea that we need a strong standing military at all times, lest we be overrun. The obvious question of, "who would be stupid enough to try and invade the US?" is not really a consideration. Let's face it, if someone was crazy enough to invade the US, you know that every hick with a shotgun would be out shooting at the invading army. Now, while one might discount this at the start of a war, take a good look at the Vietnam Conflict and the current situation in Iraq, and tell me that a small, determined insurgency cannot resist and harass a far larger and better armed professional military. And once your done dealing with those issues, explain to me why Afghanistan was under Taliban rule and not Soviet rule before the US kicked over that anthill. All the flashy technology is great for an offensive war where the goal is to kill as many people as possible, but when it becomes an occupation that technology loses a lot of its effectiveness, and you end up fighting a war of attrition against an enemy with no where else to go and nothing better to do than to kill invading troops. This is the exact reason that invading Iran will be an exercise in slaughtering US troops; the US military may take control of the country, but they will spend the next 10 years being sniped, blown up, and generally killed until the US will to fight in Iran is worn away. Invasion and occupation only work if you are willing to engage in acts so horrible that most people would, rightly, be abhorred by them. This is why the US no longer has Indian issues, the US government and people were willing to commit genocide to take the land. I would hope that we are never willing to do that again.

So, getting to the state of not having a large standing military. As I said, I'm looking at a 20 year plan. First and foremost, we stop recruiting. No more Army Strong (Am I the only one who sees a large, hairy, barbarian type saying this and grunting?) commercials, no more signing up new soldiers, nothing a complete freeze. The second step is that we start a push for our current soldiers to retire, once they hit their 20 years. Step 3, wait; in 20 years, we no longer have soldiers to worry about putting out of work. Also, let's actually keep the promises we made to them when they signed up: real health care, a livable pension, etc.

Now, during step 3, we need to go about putting the militia back together. And no, the militia does not mean the National Guard, but they do have some good ideas. By militia I mean the actual statutory US militia:
Title 10, SubTitle A, Part I, Chapter 13, Section 311:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

Now, being a believer in equality, I would expand that to simply all persons aged 17 to 45 who are or have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States. With exceptions made for those with severe mental handicap, e.g Downs Syndrome. Why don't physical handicaps disqualify you ask? Does an intelligence analyst sitting at a desk, reading maps and selecting targets really need his legs? If you're a citizen, and you're not so mentally impaired as to be a child, we can find a job for you. We can argue about the question of contentious objectors later.

As for training, this is where it is going to take a bit of work; but that's not a bad thing. During the draw down of the standing military, the training facilities and staff could be given over to training the militia. Eventually, this training should be expanded in scope to have training facilities around each state, so that people could be trained closer to home and in smaller groups; though certain specialized training centers would need to be kept up for certain jobs. The local training centers would not need to be as extensive, as they would be mostly for infantry training.

The next piece of the puzzle is actually getting people trained. I would propose a system such that, upon reaching age 18 and gaining the full rights of a citizen (btw, no more of this 18/21 bullshit, pick one) a person is assigned to a local militia unit (one would be allowed to change units at will, if they moved). That person (I'm going to use the masculine pronoun from now on, but the goal is gender neutral) spends 6 weeks going to basic training. During that time he gets the basics of infantry combat, running, shooting, tactics and drill. Upon graduation, he is issued a standard infantry rifle, which it is now his duty to keep in operation and bring in the event that his unit is mustered. From this point on, every year, his unit will spend two weeks 'in the field'. This two weeks is intended as a refresher course and to man critical defensive posts. For example, we are still going to need bodies monitoring radar for ballistic missile launches. Obviously, the two week period for each unit will be different, with overlap and timing to keep defensive stations manned at all times. And, when he reaches the age of 45 he is released from active service in the militia, meaning that he no longer trains with his unit but he is still expected to keep his rifle operational, cause occasionally, shit happens.

The difficult part in this is going to be the specialized and highly technical jobs. Pilots, tank drivers, etc. They would be volunteer positions, the taking of which would require an extra commitment. Those in the militia who wished to volunteer for such positions would be screened for ability and fitness for a role. If selected, they would spend a certain amount of time in additional training for that job, and then would spend their two weeks each year (and possibly more depending upon the demands of the job) in refresher training and service in that role. In effect they would not be part of a local militia unit anymore, but would instead be part of a specialized militia unit.

One piece I am open for debate about is whether the training time should be paid. In many ways, I see this service as the same as a tax. The problem with this view being that a two week disruption in pay might be more than many of the middle and lower classes can handle. This could be offset by government mandates that the two week training period be built into salaries, much like sick time or vacation; though, this does mean that a large portion of the cost of maintaining a militia is absorbed by businesses directly. This may not be a bad thing, as much of the reason for national defense is to provide a stable country where commerce can flourish, so the businesses are reaping a benefit by the existence of the militia and, as such, should have some burden for it. Honestly, I'm open for suggestions on this one. (hey, if you want complete answers with no debate, go listen to Limbaugh or Rhodes. I don't claim the perfection they do.)

I tend to be a pretty definite conservative in politics. Mind you, I said conservative, not Republican; the Repub's have hijacked conservatism and have been using it as their bitch for quite some time. Part of this planned hijacking, seems to be a push towards Eisenhower's vision of a Military Industrial Complex; something which he warned us against. Looking about at the current state of our government and military, and really this stretches back to the end of Eisenhower's presidency, we have seen a rise in the Halliburtons of the US, and other defense companies. And it's hard not to see us as having fallen squarely into the trap we were warned against. Really though, I don't think that this should surprise anyone. We, as in the country as a whole and the leaders we chose, made a huge blunder shortly after the end of WWII. We decided that we needed a large standing military. And the Repub's and Halliburtons have been milking this cow ever since.
A standing army was something which the Framers of the Constitution were uncomfortable with, and rightly so. Part of the reason for the rebellion against the crown was the treatment of the colonists by the military. Ever notice the Third Amendment to the US Constitution? Most people don't anymore, but it was put in there for a reason. Here, I'll save you the Google search:
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Not exactly a big ticket item anymore; not much of a debate about it either. But this was important to the Framers, because they had been dealing with this problem regularly.
There was also the fear that a standing army was a tool of a tyrant and did not have much of a place in a county which wanted peace. Originally, the view was that the various states would maintain militias, and that these could be then called up by the Federal Government in time of war. This provide a number of useful benefits. First and foremost, there is no need to keep paying a militia, except during a war. During peacetime, you don't have people trained in war running around with nothing useful to do. Lastly, the ones trained in the execution of war are the people, and not a standing military which is separate from the people. This last piece is huge for the Framers view of a free republic. If the military power and training are held by a select few, under the control of the government, this tool can be turned on the people by a corrupt government. If the military power and training is had by the people at large, there is no tool for the government to utilize against the people, expecting a small subset of the people which might support the goals of a corrupt government, and they would find themselves outnumbered and without a technological edge.
These ideas weren't new to the Framers, in fact many of these ideas were probably drawn directly from Niccolo Machiavelli. In his book Art of War he discusses, in the voice of Lord Fabrizio, he directly discusses this idea:
Upon this I say, that this being a profession by which men of every time were not able to live honestly, it cannot be employed as a profession except by a Republic or a Kingdom; and both of these, if well established, will never allow any of their citizens or subjects to employ it as a profession: for he who practices it will never be judged to be good, as to gain some usefulness from it at any time he must be rapacious, deceitful, violent, and have many qualities, which of necessity, do not make him good: nor can men who employ this as a profession, the great as well as the least, be made otherwise, for this profession does not provide for them in peace. Whence they are obliged, either to hope that there will be no peace or to gain so much for themselves in times of war, that they can provide for themselves in times of peace. And wherever one of these two thoughts exists, it does not occur in a good man; for, from the desire to provide for oneself in every circumstance, robberies, violence and assassinations result, which such soldiers do to friends as well as to enemies: and from not desiring peace, there arises those deceptions which Captains perpetrate upon those whom they lead, because war hardens them: and even if peace occurs frequently, it happens that the leaders, being deprived of their stipends and of their licentious mode of living, raise a flag of piracy, and without any mercy sack a province.
(Skip a bit brother)
...that the Roman people gave to one of its Citizens, that he should not be constrained unwillingly to fight. Rome, therefore, while she was well organized ((which it was up to the time of the Gracchi)) did not have one soldier who had to take up this practice as a profession, and therefore had few bad ones, and these were severely punished. A well ordered City, therefore, ought to desire that this training for war ought to be employed in times of peace as an exercise, and in times of war as a necessity and for glory, and allow the public only to use it as a profession, as Rome did. And any citizen who has other aims in (using) such exercises is not good, and any City which governs itself otherwise, is not well ordered.
...
But I want to dwell a little longer on this subject, and look for a Kingdom totally good, but similar to those that exist today, where those who take up the profession of war for themselves still ought to be feared by the King, for the sinews of armies without any doubt are the infantry. So that if a King does not organize himself in such a way that his infantry in time of peace are content to return to their homes and live from the practice of their own professions, it must happen of necessity that he will be ruined; for there is not to be found a more dangerous infantry than that which is composed of those who make the waging of war their profession; for you are forced to make war always, or pay them always, or to risk the danger that they take away the Kingdom from you.
...
Ottavianus first, and then Tiberius, thinking more of their own power than the public usefulness, in order to rule over the Roman people more easily, begun to disarm them and to keep the same armies continually at the frontiers of the Empire. And because they did not think it sufficient to hold the Roman People and the Senate in check, they instituted an army called the Praetorian (Guard), which was kept near the walls of Rome in a fort adjacent to that City. And as they now begun freely to permit men assigned to the army to practice military matters as their profession, there soon resulted that these men became insolent, and they became formidable to the Senate and damaging to the Emperor. Whence there resulted that many men were killed because of their insolence, for they gave the Empire and took it away from anyone they wished, and it often occurred that at one time there were many Emperors created by the several armies. From which state of affairs proceeded first the division of the Empire and finally its ruin. Kings ought, therefore, if they want to live securely, have their infantry composed of men, who, when it is necessary for him to wage war, will willingly go forth to it for love of him, and afterwards when peace comes, more willingly return to their homes; which will always happen if he selects men who know how to live by a profession other than this.
And it goes on about this and other stuff at length. If you have time it's a pretty good read, though a bit dense for the language (Art of War
The point is that a standing military is a drain and a problem waiting to happen. If it is not paid continuously, it can lead to a coup. So we turn to today's military. It is huge, for a country with the massive resources and wealth of the United States, we spend a lot of it on the military and associated industries. I would argue that this is not a good plan.
During the Cold War, we allowed ourselves to be scared into creating a military which could fight another massive WWII style war. Instead what we have fought are several limited wars which accomplished little more than killing a bunch of people and draining our resources.
The Korean Conflict is the most supportable of these wars, as this was actually fought at the behest of the South Korean government, which had actually been elected by its people; though, one might question whether the election was entirely legit. Still, this was not a defensive war. And it does create a worrying precedent of fighting for the stability of other nations. Indeed, the Korean war is still technically going, though and end does seem to be in sight.
The Vietnam conflict is a perfect example of what not to do with the US military. First and foremost, Ho Chi Minh wanted an independent Vietnam, after having been occupied by the French for a few decades as a colony; something which the US ought to have been firmly against. But Woodrow Wilson and the rest of the Western Powers were more interested in carving up the world for their own interests. You would think that, having just fought against German aggression, and with the history of the US, our leaders would have been the first to say, "yes, you should be free to choose your own destiny!" Instead he was patted on the head and sent home. This happened yet again to Ho Chi Minh, after the Viet Minh kicked the French out by force. The great FDR, decided that fucking Vietnam was acceptable, in order to make sure that France didn't side with Communism. And into the war we went.
Well, if you were paying any attention in History class, you know how that ended. The US went on a massive bombing campaign, declared victory, grabbed it's drug running buddies and got the fuck out. The NVA close on their heels. And what did all of those young Americans die for? Jack shit.
At about the same time, we also have the incredibly successful Bay of Pigs invasion. Where US supported forces attempted to invade Cuba to undo the popular revolt which Castro had just led against the Batista government, with help from the US, no less. Had we stayed out of the conflict, in all cases, it is doubtful we would have an unfriendly nation within spitting distance of us today. Though, one might argue that there is really no reason for us to not normalize trade with Cuba today, as they pose little, if any threat. Also, look at the effect trade has had on other nations around the world. The USSR could not survive an economic depression with an influx of goods and ideas from the west. China has been moving towards a better government as the poeple have seen what the west has and want it. Vietnam is also moving that way, with trade from the West bringing wealth, ideas and a desire for freedom by example.
After Vietnam there was a relative calm. The US was licking its wounds and one might imagine that we had figured out that invading other countries and trying to force our ideas on them doesn't work. Such a belief is a delusion though, as the US continued it's path to a Military Industrial Complex.
The invasion of Grenada could probably be debated in it's value for the defense of the US. One of the primary goals was the retrieval of US citizens, something which seems to be a good thing for our government to do. Though we went from there to restoring the elected government of the country. Given the immediacy of doing so, after the coup, one might argue that we were simply helping a fellow peace loving nation and this is a noble goal, though still not really defensive in nature.
After this, we have the US invasion of Panama. Not exactly a defensive war. Again, there is the thin pretext of restoring a government which had been usurped by a corrupt military, and protecting US "interests" in Panama, namely: the Panama Canal.
After that, we get to the first war with Iraq, Desert Shield/Storm. Again, the US military goes out to play traffic cop for the world. Now, this war can almost be justified, as with the Korean War, in that we were actually helping an ally at their request, and with the support of the local people. Also, Bush I did realize that invading a country was a bad idea and pulled the reigns up at the Iraqi border. Again, was this defensive, not really, but as with previous such actions, we might be able to chalk this one up to supporting allies, which does have a long term defensive effect.
Bosnia-Herzegovina, let's take the US military, put them in the middle of a civil war. This one isn't even close to defensive.
Next up is the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. Now, with this war we were attacked. Terrorism is a tactic of war, one which the US has itself used in the past and has just become squeamish about recently. The problem here is that we didn't stop with destroying our enemy's will and ability to fight, we decided to stay; and now it's an open question on whether the continued occupation is going to be worth the cost in money and lives. At the very least though this war started as a defensive reaction to an attack.
And finally, we have the invasion of Iraq: Daddy didn't go far enough. Bush II apparently failed to inherit his father's prudence and bum rushed the US off to war in Iraq. It was a good con job, he managed to convince a lot of otherwise smart people that Iraq actually posed a threat, and off we went. Heck, even today there are those that would decry anyone who questions our continued involvement there. What is it doing to secure our borders? Not much.
So, what is my point in all of this? Our standing military has done little for us at a huge cost, and has provided a temptation, too great to pass up, for our leaders to engage in offensive wars. And when you look at all of the warnings of history, and the events which have transpired in other countries where an over-powerful military has managed to led a coup against a civilian governemnt; it is time for the US to consider whether or not we really need a standing military. Before the two World Wars, this was the normal state of things in the US. A standing military was viewed as an unnecessary evil. The people were able and expected to defend the country from invasion and any war in which we fought for an ally was done by a declaration of war and the calling up of an army from the militia. I would put forth that it is time for us to go back to that state.

Sorry if I am a broken record recently, but the whole gun rights/gun control issue has been getting to me of late.
So, more fuel for the fire:
When seconds count, the SWAT team is only 6 minutes away.

Blame the victim
I'm not from the UK, so maybe I'm misunderstanding the whole context, but this article is just nuts. I can only guess that either The Guardian is a nutjob newspaper, and that this lady's readership is already out of touch with reality. Still:
To brush up against an insurance company in the first place, you're more than averagely risk averse.
This may be a cultural difference, but don't people in the UK insure expensive items? Homes, cars, etc.?

By weapon, of course, we don't mean the American sense of firearm or other item that might kill, but a golf club, cricket bat or heavy torch. Now, keeping it brief, let's run through the main reasons why this is totally stupid.
Quoted for context.

First, these figures show a massive magnification of the actual risk of being burgled, and furthermore a wanton misuse of the time and resources available for burglary prevention.
So, you're not very likely to be burgled, but assuming that you do want to prevent such a thing, the second or two it takes to put a weapon by your bed is a "wanton misuse of the time and resources available for burglary prevention." Gimme a break, I've left weapons next to my bed by mistake, and the author is making a conscious decision to do such out to be a huge waste of time. It takes only a few seconds of your life to put a club of some sort next to your bed, if you are the unlucky one to get burgled, you'll be glad you made such a waste of a couple seconds.
Moreover, if the likelihood of being burgled is so low, are we really that time and resource constrained in preparing for it?

Far better to have locks on your windows and doors. Infinitely better.
But not both. God forbid we have locks on our windows and doors, and a weapon, in case the intruder gets past the locks. Nope, once they are past the locks, you should just accept whatever it is they are going to do to you.

Second, burglars are not united by their cunning, far from it. This is anecdotal but worth it: my dad was a prison psychologist and had a burglar group once in which one guy had been caught because he'd woken the household by flushing the toilet; another had accidentally left his dog at the scene and the police just followed it home. They are, however, a bold type, and if you think how frightened you might be confronted by a puffing gentleman, naked except for his pants and bearing a heavy torch, you need to scale down that fear by some margin to judge how frightened a burglar would be. He will laugh, in other words - and I gender stereotype wildly but also advisedly.
Close, most criminals are selfish opportunists. A display of force is usually enough to get them to run. Criminals want easy targets, not cricket bat wielding maniacs who are hopped up on adrenaline.

Third, most of us haven't engaged in physical combat, with or without a golf club, since we were eight years old, the exception to this being your career criminal, who will be much better at fighting than the home owner, and will divest him of his cricket bat in no time. So now he's got your school sportsday arms cache, as well as your DVD player.
And without a club or some such you are doubly screwed. At the very least a club gives you a chance, otherwise you have to simply rely on the good behavior of someone who has already shown that they are willing to break the law and violate your rights.

Fourth, guidance from the police suggests that, in the unlikely event that you do vanquish the burglar, self-defence will be a reasonable claim, even if you do have a weapon premeditatedly to hand, but I would be chary of taking this risk, myself. Bad enough to lose your iPod, surely, without your liberty also.
This is a problem with the government, not with having a weapon. Besides which, even the UK recognizes some right to self defense, even if their laws do make it very hard to do so.

And yet, even if the weapons storage is ill thought out, there is an interesting impulse behind it, more interesting than, "you nick my stuff, you encounter my heavy torch!" This weapons storage has much less to do with our perception of risk than we might suppose. What it really reflects is not a considered assessment of our vulnerability to crime but our instinctive understanding of the philosophical "protect or share" equation - the less one is prepared to share one's wealth, the more one feels moved to protect it.
Now we're getting to the heart of her argument. If you feel a need to protect your possessions, it's just because you never learned to share. WTF, over? Maybe I want to protect my possessions because I worked hard to be able to afford them, and now some criminal is going to just take them and go? Like hell, property ownership is a very basic right; are we now to give that up to keep some criminal from being harmed?

It is an instinctive understanding that the bonds of neighbourliness are destroyed by great gulfs in resources, so that if you are to live in comparative splendour, good luck to you and all that, but your faith in your fellow man will necessarily diminish, whatever the crime figures tell you.
Remember, if you get robbed, it's your own fault for being too rich. And the desire to protect that which you have worked for is because you hate other people. Do I even need to point out the problems in this?

On the same day as the Cornhill study, by coincidence, arrive reports that the wealth gap is the widest it has been for 40 years. The wealthy no longer live among the poor, they rarely even meet them. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the trickle-down effect is ineffective and does not reach the bottom quarter of society. Danny Dorling, who led the study, said: "Rich people are less likely to come into contact with poor people and vice versa. People don't see people who are beneath them." Well, yes and no. They may not literally see them, but they see them in their nightmares.

Its those rich bastards, they are just afraid of being robbed, but never think about the poor otherwise.
So, can someone clue me in? Is this lady just a nutcase writing for a tabloid, or are there really people in the UK who take her ideas seriously?
As for me, I don't expect that I will ever be robbed (I do agree with her, the odds are low); however, if I am that unlucky 1 in a 1000, I'd rather not be reliant on the goodwill of a criminal. Good locks are a start, failing that, it's a .38 special with hollow points.

Self defense is a crime.

Originally written as a response in a Fark thread, so some references to a theoretical reader, who made a comment asking why one would support Ron Paul, may not make much sense here. First let me stop here and mention that I'm not going to go into the Democrat contenders, I am registered Republican and that is the primary I will vote in. Until such time as the nominees are selected, my views on any of the Democrat hopefuls are pointless.
That said...

• We'll start with the hot issue of the day: of all the Republican candidates, he is the only one who recognizes that we are in Vietnam II: Desert Edition. This falls along his general philosophy that the US should not be engaging in preemptive wars, otherwise know as a non-interventionist policy. Also, unlike Rudy Giulian, he's willing to recognize that much of the anti-US sentiment in the Middle East is a direct result of our jerking around over there for the past 70-odd years. (see: Blowback.)
• Lower Taxes. Currently, most of us work about 2 months a year for the federal government. I'd like to keep more of my money, thank you. Now, as has been pointed out, this will have to come from somewhere.
  • Let's start with some easy ones: Goodbye Department of Homeland Security. Along with it the FBI and CIA should both see a downsizing.
  • Social Security would be fazed out, though the gains from this (like the deficit from it now) will mostly be on paper and not real.
    Let me step aside for a moment and mention that I do disagree with him here, so I'm not going to try and defend his position. He would see an eventual end to Social Security by voluntary opt-out by workers. Without an ever growing base paying into it, the Ponzi scheme will collapse, accomplishing the goal of killing Social Security. I do see a need for Social Security, I would just like to see a system put in place that any Congressperson who seriously talks about borrowing from that system, is taken out and beaten with wiffle bats until they need traction.
  • Back on track, next up for cuts: the US Military. Assuming that we aren't gallivanting about the world trying to play traffic cop, we don't need a military large enough to fight off half the world at once. Even during the Cold War this was a scam to line the pockets of military contractors. It's time to go back to a small defensive force, which exists to augment the fact that anyone dumb enough to invade the US is going to have to fight every hick with a gun. For those that pooh-pooh this resistance, please take note of what a determined and hostile populous can do to an occupying force (see: Vietnam Conflict, Russian occupation of Afghanistan, The current War in Iraq). And, let's face it, with the current US nuclear arsenal, a country attacking the US directly would be catastrophic to the attacker's country as well.
  • Moving on, the item on the chopping block: foreign aid. It's great that people in the US want to help starving children in Africa, we don't need to force people to spend money on it though.
  • Along with this, we'd probably reduce our investments in the UN.
    Another aside here. I expect that Ron Paul would work to remove us from the UN completely, again I disagree with this. The UN is a good forum for trying to work out international problems with words, as opposed to guns, but it should stop there. The UN is not a world government, and I would be all for leaving it, if it tries to force the issue.
  • I'm going to stop here with the areas to cut. With just what is above, we should be able to reduce taxes quite a bit.
• Limited Government. This boils down to getting rid of the BATF and DEA, and reducing the role of the FBI in investigations to support and meta-policing (policing the police for violating the rights of citizens). And letting the States handle policing their citizens. In this is also leaving schooling in the hands of State and local governments; not spying on US citizens; not farking with Habeus Corpus. And generally trying to stay within the confines of the powers delegated to the Federal Government in the US Constitution, and not seeing how car he can push the Interstate Commerce clause.

To be continued, but I need dinner now.