253 of 300

. . . is my score today in competition with the M9 service pistol. Good thing I got that right contact lens replaced.

I've carried one in the discharge of my duties but had never fired one before. To date I've only been able to shoot the FATS version, with the inert-gas-operated slide to simulate recoil.

No, I don't like 'em. Too fat in the grip, can't hit any controls without changing my grip, and they have a bad, bad reputation for reliability.

Friday quick hits

On h0m0s3%ual marriage, I've posted some items on my Senate campaign blog. I don't have an animus towards such arrangements myself, and I am certain that with time, States will allow it and more of society will tolerate it. As I think I make clear over on the other blog, I am suspicious of many of the activists seeking to extend formal marriage to gays. Here's an alternative view that shares my Constitutional objections but not my suspicions regarding access to spousal benefits.

My limited experience with such arrangements is limited to three couples, two of whom I've gotten to know fairly well, though I remain in touch with only one today.

That relationship is badly broken, and kids are involved. I'm also confident, admittedly with limited knowledge of the relationship, that its failure was not traceable to the lack of a marriage license provided by the State.

* * * *

Much ado about the trial run of an in-flight-assembled b0mB on Northwest Airlines 327. I reassert: we have to make Uncle Sugar recognize that airline passengers are not an asset to be secured, managed, and protected but an asset to be trained, prepared, and informed, and most of all permitted to protect air travel. The biggest obstacle in the way of us protecting ourselves aboard commercial air is Uncle Sugar. First he can get out of the way, next he can actually offer help.


More on h0m0s3%ual marriage

One cause for activists on the political Right to seek a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage is that the Defense of Marriage Act has not been tried in the Courts, and likely will fall. They say they must begin the long and arduous process of ratifying the amendment because the DOMA won't stand.

Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law School, on how the Defense of Marriage Act would fare in the Courts:
The Court did not clearly say or signal that DOMA was unconstitutional; the Court held that criminalizing sexual conduct [in Lawrence v. Texas] violated people's liberty, not that homosexual couples were entitled to equal access to the benefits flowing from marriage. And my sense is that most constitutional scholars (not all, but most) that have considered the issue believe DOMA would be upheld.


One step closer to the MP3-player-slash-language-trainer

I'll coin the term yoda to refer to a small device that one can clip
to oneself, and let it teach you something during times of stress. The foreign-language yoda I proposed isn't just already in development, it's in beta.

Hat tip: BoingBoing.