Google stores only the most recent automatic update or location selection you manually entered on our servers.

does NOT say, to wit, whether the data might be stored on servers other than “our servers”.

If DHS wants to track your location via your cell phone, they don’t really need Google’s help doing that. On the other hand, if a private company is already collecting data on people’s movements, that must look like a mighty tempting target…

Do you need anything from me?

I replied:

World peace, or failing that, maybe some whirled peas?

And his response was:

I do not currently have the resources necessary to overthrow the current US government and re-instate the Constitution, which would contribute to a more stable world order, so I will procure some whirled peas for you.

Personally, I’m in favor of women’s suffrage.

So much for the First Amendment right to peaceably assemble. For that right to exist, we must have the right not only to choose with whom we wish to associate, but also with whom we wish NOT to associate.

I think it is reasonable to ask children to give valentines to all their classmates, but I don’t think it’s right to force them to do so. I wonder whether it would violate the school’s policy to include a personal message on a valentine for a particular student.

Last night I decided to buy a new lamp for my bedroom. I went to one of the major chain discount stores, and found a “incandescent torchiere with reading lamp”. I intended to use compact fluorescent bulbs rather than incandescents, and assumed that the reference to incandescents on the labeling served to distinguish it from the halogen torchieres. The label further indicated:

This lighting fixture complies with the US Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products. LAMPS MUST TOTAL NO MORE THAN 190 WATTS. TORCHIERE IS NON_COMPLIANT IF IT IS ABLE TO DRAW MORE THAN 190 WATTS.

That didn’t sound problematic; after all, I was only planning to use one 42 watt CF for the main lamp, and one 26 watt CF for the reading lamp. Last I checked, 68 watts was no more than 190 watts.

I took it home and assembled it. There was a plastic box in the line cord with a button or knob; at first I thought it might be a dimmer, which would be unfortunate as normal CFs won’t work with dimmers. However, upon reading the brief instruction sheet, I found that the box is designed to sense the power drawn by the fixture, and shut it off if 190 watts is exceeded.

Unfortunately when I plugged it in, I discovered that the CFs would light momentarily, then the limiter would trip. Pressing the reset button on the limiter would simply cause the same thing to happen again. Incandescent bulbs are nearly 100% resistive loads, so they don’t have much inrush current. A CF, on the other hand, draws a surge current at initial powerup, then reduced current once it is operating. I believe it is this initial surge that is tripping the limiter.

A bit of searching uncovered the cause of this problem: Congress in their infinite wisdom passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public law 109-058), which provides in 42 U.S.C. 6295(x):

(x) TORCHIERES.—A torchiere manufactured on or after
January 1, 2006—
‘‘(1) shall consume not more than 190 watts of power;
and
‘‘(2) shall not be capable of operating with lamps that
total more than 190 watts.

Despite the package label, this is not part of the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products program. The Department of Energy promulgated regulations to enforce the law, and has information on their Appliances & Commercial Equipment Standards page.

Although there are several ways for lamp manufacturers to comply, using an electronic limiter appears to be very common. This is more expensive than a fuse, but perhaps the manufacturers view it has causing fewer product returns or support calls. However, the end result is that the lamp as provided can only be used with incandescent bulbs, and not with energy-saving CF bulbs. And we have to pay extra for the privilege (those limiters cost money, raising the price of the lamp), and pay again in taxes to support the DoE’s compliance monitoring and enforcement.

I unplugged the lamp, cut the line cord to remove the limiter, and put on a new line plug. Now it works fine.  But had I not been inclined to modify the lamp, my response would have been to install one each 100W and 60W incandescent bulbs, thus using more than 2.3 times as much energy.  I expect most people that buy one of these lamps will not want to modify them, so the effect of the legislation will be to increase energy usage.

Since U.S. Representative Joe Barton (R, TX) introduced this legislation, I propose that anyone that encounters this problem and removess a limiter from a torchiere lamp in order to save energy by using CF bulbs should send the limiter to him with our compliments.  Maybe he can find a use for the limiters around his own home or office.  The address of his Washington office is

The Honorable Joe Barton
2109 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Even if it didn’t affect the use of CF bulbs, this legislation is incredibly stupid. If I need 300W of lighting in a room, and want to use incandescent bulbs, I’ll simply buy two lamps. This is the same stupid law that changed daylight savings time in 2007 for no good reason and to no measurable benefit.

Public protection

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that is subject to this subchapter if–
(1) the collection of information does not display a valid control number assigned by the Director in accordance with this subchapter; or
(2) the agency fails to inform the person who is to respond to the collection of information that such person is not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a valid control number.
(b) The protection provided by this section may be raised in the form of a complete defense, bar, or otherwise at any time during the agency administrative process or judicial action applicable thereto.

44 U.S.C. 3512

DHS even admits that they are in violation of the law, by requiring employers to submit the information despite the expiration of the OMB document control number.

I have been asked to fill out an I-9 with the expired control number. The government has always denied me the use of expired documents (e.g., driver’s license or passport). Why should I respect their expired documents, especially when the law clearly states that I cannot be penalized for failing to do so?

Consult an attorney before making your own decision as to whether to complete an I-9.

However, I have some ambivalence about this, as well as a general uneasiness with laws named after individuals. Is there an individual liberty issue here? If all citizens have a right to be armed, does society have a right to protect itself by assuring that all those at liberty are mentally balanced? Or are the two liberties to be crazy and the to be armed so important that we cannot trade them off against each other? The statist is always focused on the benefits of the suppression of liberty, ignoring the consequences of abuse, but I am not blind to the negative by-products of liberty. Typically my response is that planning, regulation and control have their downsides as well, and I ma willing to accept the abuses of liberty, which IMHO are usually minor in scope when compared to the abuses of government control.

A great example is the eye-sore liquor store in my neighborhood. How I wish it would disappear and return our town to a more pristine state. However, I acknowledge that Mr. Singh, the owner of this blight on 1st Street, has a right to set up his business and sell booze to a public that demands his wares. Thus I sigh as I pass, “A small price to pay for liberty.” However, one must judge events by their scope, and 32 dead students are a significantly greater consequence than minor urban blight.

So is forced commitment in a society that allows citizens great liberty of action justified?

This escalated to severe restrictions on freedom of speech, freedom of association, the right to peaceably assemble, and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. Many people continued to support the government’s policies, still believing that it made them safer, but an increasing number of people were unhappy about it. Unfortunately public protests had long since been banned.

We tried to vote for politicians that promised to restore some of our lost liberties, but they did not get elected. Because the electronic voting machines provided no audit trail, we weren’t sure that the elections were legitimate.

I came up with some new form of civil disobedience to use in the fight against oppression, though I don’t recall what it was. It caught on quickly among those of us seeking the return of our freedoms, and we actually succeeded in winning a few back.

Then I woke up.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. — Benjamin Franklin

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.. — Thomas Jefferson

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free. — Ronald Reagan

Dear Congressman Ryan,

I want to thank you for taking the Food Stamp Challenge, and I’m very sorry to hear about your misfortune of losing some of your meals to the TSA.

In addition to your obvious concern over the food stamp program, perhaps you could also introduce legislation to get the TSA to ease up a bit on some of the more ridiculous “security” measures they have imposed, such as the completely ineffectual liquid ban. There is no credible evidence that terrorists could actually use liquids in carry-on luggage as a binary explosive powerful enough to endanger a commercial passenger jet.

I’m entirely in favor of the TSA imposing restrictions that actually improve airline safety, but neither the ban on liquids nor the requirement of a photo ID provide actual security. They are just “security theater”, and the only actual effect is to make travel less convenient for honest, law-abidiing citizens, including yourself.

Sincerely,
Eric Smith

Like the No Fly List, the SDN will only serve to cause trouble for honest citizens, but will not affect terrorists at all.  In fact, it makes things easier for terrorist, because they can simply download the list, and if their name or alias is on the list, adopt a new alias.