While that is very true, should you state your grievances on Facebook, then it makes you easier to target.
All those anti-Israel comments on FB at the moment - bingo, you've been tagged as probably anti-Semitic, potentially a Muslim terrorism supporter and worth putting on a watch list.
Now if you happen to go to a humanitarian demo that is judged to be pro-Palestine then you are highly liked to be filmed (especially in the UK). The contents of those police cameras are later downloaded and processed. Face recognition software cross-references you with Facebook and other public people databases.
Searching....ping....found target...
- Name: <Tertia>...
- Anthropology: Caucasian
- Source: Facebook NSA hook
- Threat score: 1.3
- Upgrading threat score: + 2.5
Auto triggers:
- Flag Homeland Security
- Tag passport
- Watch social security number
- Track internet usage (log level: all)
It is probably an exaggeration as of today, but this is the system that the NSA is aiming for.
and boy, does this need an amendment: when a farmer can be sued and forced to not grow food for his own family, and the suit is found valid because of Article I Section 8 we have a huge problem.
There's a structure in the US and its states that regulate what (subsidized?) farmers can grow. I don't know if it's solely the USDA. Anyway, if a farmer is supposed to be growing soybeans, they cannot grow (for example) potatoes. There have been cases of farmers having crops meant for family consumption that have been sued (or raided? -- something way over the top for the violation, anyway). IIRC, the big gun that it used is the interstate commerce clause. So if a spud farmer in Idaho wants a few bushels of wheat for his family, his growing it would (supposedly) impact market value on wheat prices.
There's some scary stuff in the farming regulation. There was a law in the works called NAIS (national animal ID system)that severely intrudes on people's right to raise their own livestock. It was stirring up a storm of controversy in homesteaders' circles a decade ago, though I don't know the current state of that is.
A mischaracterization of Wickard v. Filburn, which is nonetheless one of the worst decisions ever handed down by the Supreme Court - taking an unusual circumstance that obtained during WW@ and generalizing it to a fundamental aspect of the Commerce power. However, it's sort of off-topic here. Wikipedia has an extensive discussion of the case.
> A mischaracterization of Wickard v. Filburn, which is nonetheless one of the worst decisions ever handed down by the Supreme Court - taking an unusual circumstance that obtained during WW@
While, the court process and decisions occurred during WW2, the law and the acts which, under it, created the controversy occurred before US involvement in WW2, it was more about the Great Depression/New Deal than the War.
You're right, but I have always felt that the urgency of the wartime context tilted the balance of the court's opinion towards an overbroad endorsement of the government's side, and that that tilt has persisted via precedent.
I will go back and reread it to see whether that impression is correct or whether I've imputed my own bias to the court's decision since I read it, but given that I'm generally of a more statist bent than most people here I don't think it's just personal bias.
Wickard v. Filburn established that all activity, including washing your dishes, is economic activity that congress can regulate under the commerce clause.
No, Wickard v. Filburn didn't establish that that is true of "all activity", and if one thought that it did then one would be forced to conclude that that result was overturned in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) and United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000).
I would be neat to see your pre and post workout blood-pressure stats too, and how that has changed over time. I can personally tell that when I squat or deadlift near my max that my BP peaks. I'd like to know how quickly it falls off after, etc. I'm also curious to know if heavy-lifting has positive effects on circulatory system elasticity.
"Finally, muscle mass is far from enough to be an effective metabolic regulator. While I have yet to meet anyone who runs 100 miles a week and is overweight, it's not uncommon to find that someone who benches 500lbs still carries a gut. I myself have gained a great deal of both fat and muscle since my school years when I was a runner."
1. Take an equal amount of fat vs muscle: which will burn more calories? Muscle, obviously.
2. People who bench 500lbs are not that common, and those that are are probably power-lifters, not body-builders. There's a big difference. Power-lifters are more apt to gain 'dirty weight' (meaning fat included with the muscle) to help them drive ever-higher PRs.
Of course, muscle requires more food to maintain than fat does. I think you missed the point.
What I was saying was that merely building muscle doesn't do much in terms of cutting down body fat. Muscle burns calories, but people with more muscle also tend to eat more calories. This is even true of people who have extraordinary quantities of muscle.
Cardio, on the other hand, only works that way up to a point. People who do a bit of running also tend to compensate by eating more. However, after a certain level of volume, cardio starts to suppress the appetite to about what's needed to maintain the workload. This is probably why I've never seen anyone, including myself, manage to keep the weight on after getting over about 70 miles/week (about the level of an ambitious high school cross-country runner).
