The bracelet, called an Electro-muscular Disruption device, would be issued at a passenger’s check in at the ticket counter. The bracelet would include electronic data such as a boarding pass, checked luggage information and GPS tracking. The darker aspect of it is that it would allow an airline crew member to issue a radio signal that would kick the device into “shock and awe” mode, disabling the passenger for a period of time. Supposedly, the idea is to prevent terrorism. Presumably, the next step would be a more “efficient” security screening process at the TSA checkpoints.

If you’re a natural cynic like me, you might be able to imagine more nefarious uses inside and outside of air travel as the technology “proves itself”. For instance, an autistic kid could be subdued using such technologies. Maybe a wife “disables” her husband because she doesn’t feel like arguing anymore. Or a credit card company disables a cardholder for being 60 days late on their payment. The possibilities are endless in a society that has proven it’s inability to exercise restraint over time.

I did a WHOIS search on the company proposing this technology to the US Government and discovered that the domain lamperdlesslethal.com is registered to Barry Lampered, a known law enforcement consultant in Canada and has an extensive record in “minimal force” policing.

While I respect Canada and I have many Canadian friends, I’m not sure their brand of socialism should be something we strive for in the United States. Edit: Not that I believe that all Canadians believe in this. In fact, I tend to think they don’t. To appease my Canadian friends, such as Paul Short in comments, the title of this post is meant to be tongue-in-cheek. Relax guys!

On a related note, how many of you saw I, Robot (or better yet, read the book)?

Added: For those like me who wonder how this sort of thing would work from a tech perspective, my guess is that there would be some kind of blowfish public/private key pairings combined with RFID (depends on if the issuance of such bracelets really stayed limited to air travel or if the bracelet became more of a requirement, a la national ID card). On checkin, the bracelet would be scanned much like a hotel room key is granted room access and the public-private pairings would designate a “trust” between the pilot (or whomever) and the passenger allowing a master/slave relationship (pardon the pun).

For the really conspiratorial, I give you Revelation 13:18.

Adam Liptak at New York Times indicates that potential lawsuits will follow challenging gun laws in other cities but notes the caveat that the Court decided on a law in the District of Columbia making the decision applicable to federal law only and not necessarily state and local law.

What is interesting to me about the decision is not the gun aspect of this law. Somewhat of a pragmatic realist and a natural cynic, I see the decision (which I commend) as fraught with the possibility of other problems.

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

The decision, in essence says that no public policy may supersede that which is established in Constitutional law, a thesis that is somewhat vague. And therein lies our problem. By setting this precedent, we have to ask, “Hasn’t this always been the case? Haven’t we relied on the courts to tell us if a law passed by the legislature and signed by the executive branch was Constitutional or not? What is the Court saying here?”

My feeling is that this decision sets up extra-Constitutional authority to the Judiciary to also have to sign a bill into law. Congress passes. Thee Court rubber-stamps. The President signs.

This is not what our forefathers had in mind when they established a system of checks and balances.

Some might think I’m smoking crack. I just generally believe that where there is smoke, there is fire.

But the U.S. Empire is not a territorial empire. In fact, territory is limiting. The Greek Empire under Alexander could only extend so far before they collapsed from overextension. It was said that the sun never set on the British empire, yet over the century spanning the end of the East India Company in the mid-1800s to World War II, British colonial interests in the world shrank dramatically.

Territory was the old black. Economy is the new black.

I don’t claim to be an economist, but I venture to guess that most economists will vouch for the power and influence of the U.S. Dollar. Most of the worlds currencies are tied to the U.S. Dollar and some countries (Ecuador, East Timor and El Salvador) don’t even have a currency of their own, choosing instead to deal in the Dollar.

Is it a surprise that foreign economies shudder when Wall Street has a bad day? Is it surprising that the world held it’s breath awaiting the economic fall out on 9/11?

German economic magazine, Spiegel, wonders how dangerous the decline in the dollar is?

Again, I’m not an economist. But I wonder at the wisdom of continuing on the weak dollar policy adopted by the Bush administration. The theory is, the less the dollar is worth, the more will come back into the country. The weaker the dollar is, the more we can spend on the global market. The weaker the dollar is, the more you and I have to pay for groceries and bus fares. Inflation grows when there is too weak a dollar. Of course, the flip side is that deflation occurs with a stronger dollar. Less foreign investment can be made which leads to fewer US products sold abroad.

It’s a quandry. But it’s food for thought.

As indicated before, my name is Aaron Brazell. I am a technologist and a blogger – notably involved with the new media network, b5media. My corner of the web is at Technosailor where in the past year I have focused quite a bit on the technology of social media. Deeper in the archives are my political soapboxes.

The human psyche is composed of all three areas of the political spectrum. We all have some degree of liberalism. We all have a bit of conservatism. And to varying degrees, we are all somewhere in the middle. We are hybrids but we like to deny that fact. We like to call ourselves democrats or republicans. We like to call ourselves conservatives or liberals. We like labels because labels help us cope with the reality that we really can’t find a container that really fits the bill. We are all products of our environments and rarely do our environments define democrats or republicans, conservatives or liberals.

It’s this human psyche that desires retention in a small box that politicos cater to. We have a two party system and if the average doesn’t pick a side, they are left out of the dialogue. The Legislatures around the country go through an endless cycle of “label tug o’ war”. Will the Democrats take the House? Will the Republicans maintain the Presidency?

Embracing individuality and defining your own parameters as a political activist is a task that is easy to claim, yet difficult to embrace. The system is counter-individuality. It is difficult to make a difference without declaring allegiance. But for those who can do it, and successfully execute, political freedom is at hand.

I am of this brand of political pundits.

I am conservative in that I believe in small government. Sound fiscal policy is the way we run our personal lives and it is the way that government should handle the checkbook. Raising taxes is useless without cutting spending. Spending more and not reining in the proverbial credit card doesn’t serve me well. Why should economic principles change because the government is The Government?

I am conservative in that I believe that strict adherence to law and order is the only way to stem the flow of illegal immigration. Economically, business benefit from illegal labor. Societally, we are hurt.

I am a conservative in that I believe the Judiciary was placed as the third portion of the governmental triumvirate not to make laws – that is the role of the Legislature – or to set policy – that is the role of the Executive – but to strictly interpret law based on the framework of Constitutional law. I do not believe the Constitution is a living document and it is not in place to meet the individual lobbies that might try to use it for their purpose. It is a framework and as a framework, offers the support and foundation for other laws. Therefore, there should be no Gay Marriage amendment. If the issue is really an issue needing tackling, the Amendment in question should offer a framework for other laws. Perhaps an Amendment defining the roles of governmental branches in solving cultural problems.

I am a liberal in that I believe the government exists for the people. That’s not to say that everything the people want or need should be provided by the government. In the immortal words of William Wallace in Braveheart:

You think the people of this country exist to provide you with position. I think your position exists to provide those people with freedom. And, I go to make sure that they have it.

I am a liberal in that my belief is that America should not be at war without just provocation. Afghanistan was justified. Iraq was not.

I am a libertarian in that my belief on governmental intervention into the lives of its people should be kept minimalistic. Constitutional liberties should be preserved and not thwarted via “patriotic” mechanisms such as the USA Patriot Act (and yes I have read it). Wiretaps should be conducted under the auspices of judicial review – especially because such mechanisms have been provided for the protection of the citizens of the United States.

Finally, I have called for the impeachment of the President for one thing – though I highly disagree with him on many things. Impeachment of Bush should be conducted based on intentional and unapologetic usurpation of power from the Congress (abuse of War Powers Act in NSA wiretap investigation) and the intentional and unapologetic usurpation of power from the Judiciary (declaring the FISA restriction on wiretaps irrelevant and unnecessary) – eliminating the Constitutional provided three branch system.

That’s me. More to come.