Whether your macros du jour are low carb, low fat, or something in between, these are my top five picks to keep your sweet tooth ballin' on a caloric budget.

#5 PB2

In short, this is dehydrated peanut butter.

You keep the delicious taste, you ditch most of the fat and carbs. A 2 tbsp serving of normal peanut butter weighs in at 210 calories, where as 2 tbsp of PB2 is a mere 45. Add some water and you're in business. This is great because it can be added to all sorts of other recipes (including smoothies). There is also a chocolate version that has the same calorie count and a very similar nutrient profile.

#4 Arctic Zero Ice Cream

If you want to eat a pint of ice cream without paying the price, this is your free pass.

I have satisfied my ice cream craving many a night with this stuff. 150 calories, 16g net carbs, and 13.6g protein... per pint. No, it is not as good as full fat and sugar ice cream, but it is a close second and it will keep you from going to town on a bucket of Blue Bell. There are many flavors, but the Vanilla Maple is the closest to real ice cream in my opinion. If you like it, you should really try their ice cream bars. At 85 cal/bar, they are fantastic treats.

#3 Isopure Dutch Chocolate

As far as protein powders go, this is my favorite for the value/taste/nutrient profile.

When mixed in water, this tastes like chocolate milk, I kid you not. 50g of protein per serving, 1g fat, and 3g carbs -- what's not to love? Often, I'll add some of the aforementioned PB2 in and make a PB/Chocolate shake, but it's also very tasty alone. Beware, not all Isopure powders are equal. I tried the mint chocolate version... do not do this. That road is filled with suffering and regret. I read reviews from others who said it tasted terribly and I didn't listen, thinking that they didn't like mint chocolate as much as I do. Do yourself a favor: buy some mint extract and throw a few drops in with your Dutch chocolate rather than suffer that abomination. Like PB2, the Dutch Chocolate goes great with many other recipes.

#2 Walden Farms Pancake Syrup

This is pancake syrup that tastes pretty darned close to real pancake syrup, but inexplicably has no calories.

Granted, on a low carb day you will not likely be eating a ton of pancakes, but it does have its applications. The mighty Ogus Cake relies heavily on the stuff. (Ogus is not always family-friendly -- be warned). You can pour some on your Arctic Zero ice cream, or even just have a spoonful when you need that sweet fix. I have been known to consume an entire bottle in one day... it is that good. Like Isopure, not all Walden products are the same. This is actually the only one that I have been able to consume on its own, but it is delicious. Some Walden products I've tried, like their peanut butter spread, are barely not palatable.

#1 Quest Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough Bar

I have saved the best for last, and I promise, this is the best!

I've been a fan of Quest bars in the past, particularly the Coconut Cashew, Chocolate Brownie, and Peanut Butter supreme, but this is a totally different animal. It tastes almost exactly like chocolate chip cookie dough, but has the nutrient profile of a few ounces of chicken breast with a healthy dose of fiber.

I do not know how they achieved this, and I do not care. I suspect some sort of sorcery and goat sacrifice were involved. These taste better than most actual candy bars, and they totally destroy the nutrient profile of other cookie dough "nutrition bars" out there. Do yourself a favor and grab some. (Right now you will have a hard time finding quest bars anywhere but a GNC as far as brick & mortar, and otherwise you can get them at various sites online.) Don't blame me when you develop an addiction, because you will. If Quest ever figures out how to make a mint chocolate bar, I'm convinced they will rule the world.

There you have it, friends. Go forth and eat!

There are so many things a guy should know at that age that I just didn't. So... in case I ever run across a time machine, I'm getting my list of points together now.

Tip #1: You don't have to be awesome at everything, nor can you be. Someone out there is really great at that thing you are interested in. Find them, and take advantage of their knowledge.

Maybe you think you can become fashionable if you try hard enough. You're wrong. You're no good at that. Find someone who is, and get help. Get help now.

If you can't see the proof in the mirror, buddy, then I don't know what to tell you.

You probably think you have a bunch of natural talent at sports but have just never applied yourself. This is unequivocally false. Find someone who knows how to make a free throw and just ask them how to practice. Don't waste your time doing this on your own. Make an exception for ping pong. You are good at that.

The internet hasn't really gotten rolling yet, but when it does, a bunch of people are going to start writing things. If these concern do-it-yourself projects, restaurant reviews, nutrition, or foreign language, start reading. If they start by talking to their past selves... run away.

Apparently, Facebook has changed the defaults to where anyone who is friends with someone tagged in a photo (or any post, for that matter) can see that photo. You may be totally fine with that; some people want all the exposure they can get.

For those who don't, here's a few fixes:

Blanket Denial

If you'd like to default every post (photo, status, or anything else) to where only friends of yours can see it, go to the upper right hand side of your page and click on the little down arrow. Choose Privacy Settings, and then Custom. Uncheck the Friends of those tagged option.

Per-Album Denial

To avoid non-friends viewing albums you have posted, go to the Photos application and select My Photos. Choose See All Photos, and then edit the settings of whichever album(s) you like. Select Custom and uncheck the Friends of those tagged option.

Tag Review

As a bonus, you can turn on the Tag Review feature. Straight from the help page:

Don't Hassle the Hoff

Googling "how to get abs" will provide many different routes to that holy grail of fitness, but almost all of them share a single feature: You have to deal with calories, and you have to deal with macronutrients.

Pretty soon, you'll discover that some restaurants share all of their nutritional information, right down to the last pickle. My favorite in this regard is What-a-Burger... check out their Build-a-Meal site. After you choose the main item, you can customize it by each individual topping!

Many are good about sharing most of their info in PDF form, but might not include toppings or account for options without bread.

Others just don't share their nutritional information at all. I'm looking at you, Cheesecake Factory! From their FAQ:

Eat first, ask questions never.

Of course, most restaurants fall somewhere in the middle of the spectrum. One of my favorites, In-n-Out, happens to occupy this caloric grey area. All the items on their menu have basic information available, but if you are up to some crazy customization (I AM!!), then you're out of luck...

...out of luck until now, that is. I'm going to show you how to use nutrition charts to beat the system and get annoyingly accurate, fellow calorie-counters! To demonstrate, I'll calculate the calories and macronutrients for the glorious 20x20 burger of old! I tried to down this bad boy in a challenge last August. That did not go well.

So young... so optimistic. Next time, this burger will taste like victory.

If you browse on over to the In-n-Out nutrition site, you can see we have the information for a few different options:

Nom Nom Nom Numbers!

In my experience, it's best to use a spreadsheet for this kind of thing. (I don't always use spreadsheets, but when I do, I prefer the free one from OpenOffice.org.)

How can we start? We want to isolate whatever ingredients we can, so let's begin with the easiest. We know everything for a Hamburger w/ Onion, and a Cheeseburger w/ Onion. The only difference between the two is a slice of cheese, so it stands to reason that if we subtract all the nutritionals for the hamburger from the cheeseburger, we'll be left with the values for the cheese itself.

The method is simple: You type the information for the Burger into Row 1. You type in information for the Cheeseburger into Row 2. Then use your formulas to calculate the values into a new row. In the example below, type =B3-B2 into B5. Then, type =C3-C2 into C5. Finally, highlight both B5 and C5, and drag the rectangle all the way across to Q5. Bam! You now have all the nutritionals for a slice of cheese at in-n-out.

Yay, spreadsheets.

We can apply this process over and over to single out other ingredients:

• Lettuce is effectively nothing, so Hamburger w/ Onion - Protein Style = Bun
• Double-Double w/ Onion - Cheeseburger w/ Onion - Cheese Slice = Single Meat Patty
• Hamburger w/ Onion - Bun - Single Meat Patty = Onion/Sauce Combo
• and just for fun: Hamburger w/ Onion w/ Mustard and Ketchup instead of Spread - Bun - Single Meat Patty = Onion/Mustard/Ketchup Combo

At this point, we should take note of two things. First, the weight count (total grams) will be off. I suspect this is due to the fact that we've relied on the lettuce being effectively nothing, but it is holding enough moisture to outweigh a bun. Second, we cannot logically derive the individual values for Mustard, Ketchup, Onions, nor the Spread from the information given. These are fairly common, however, and everyone knows the Sauce is basically Thousand Island. You can get pretty accurate if you need.

No matter, though, because we now have enough information to calculate the behemoth 20x20!

1 Bun + 1 Sauce/Onion Combo + 20 Meat Patties + 20 Cheese Slices = 1 Massive 20x20

By my calculations, a 20x20 contains an impressive

• 4090 Calories
• 293 Grams of Fat
• 39 Grams of Carbs
• 307 Grams of Protein

Armed with this information, you can now be just about as accurate as you like with nutritionals if the restaurant provides even minimal information. Good luck!

well-done, food counter.

Fitness/Health

• Mark's Daily Apple - This is all about living/eating Primal.
• MuscleHack - How to get ripped, including building that six-pack.
• LeanGains - Intermittent Fasting, nutrition, and training. High quality material.

Spirituality

• Stormented - My buddy Jonathan Stormant's Christian perspectives.
• Nerdlets - Where the Bible and technology meet.

Technology

• Tom's Hardware - The best reviews and up-to-date info for computers.
• NewEgg - I buy almost all my technologies here.
• MacRumors Buying Guide - I never buy Apple products unless I've checked this first.

Entertainment

• PluggedIn - Content reviews on upcoming films from a Christian perspective.
• LambdaGeneration - All things Valve and Half-Life.
• Phoronix - The best Linux gaming site around.

Politics

• The Daily Paul - All things Ron Paul.
• Lew Rockwell - A compilation of Libertarian writing and interviews.
• AntiWar.com - Some of the best foreign policy reporting there is.
• Eric Margolis - The best source on the Middle East I know.

Random

• Yanghaiying - The cure for insomnia.
• Ghostery - Everyone who uses the internet should have this.

I think my all time favorite is Exodus 4:24, the very next verse after God sends Moses packing off to Egypt for his big mission: "At a lodging place on the way, the Lord met Moses and was about to kill him." Best segue ever. What follows is even weirder, but I'll leave that for your enjoyment. Back to the subject at hand...

What got me started on this was last Sunday's sermon, when our preacher mentioned the familiar passage in Philippians 1:20-23. The most well-known segment is verse 21: "For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain."

While I've never doubted this was true for Paul, I'm pretty sure I haven't embraced that philosophy myself. I've always been a member of the "to live is awesome, and to die is an unfortunate inevitability" camp. Nonetheless, the verse made me wonder what I would write, if forced to be totally honest.

The truth is, I compartmentalize my life into these different buckets; I have a label for each of them, complete with a running tally of how I'm doing.

So here we go; I'm going to share with you the Epistle of Lloyd, Chapter 2, Verse 14:

For to me, to live is:

• Relationships. This is a big bucket with a bunch of little ones inside it. Each has a label and I like to make sure I have them all covered. Am I calling Mom enough? Am I abiding as a Dude among my buddies? Do my Bosses think I'm funny and nice, as well as smart and competent? Do "the Ladies" enjoy my company? One day, I might even be asking whether my Wife still loves me or whether I'm doing a good job with my Kids.
• Finance. This bucket looks more like a wallet. Am I in debt? Am I prepared for eventualities? Might I buy a house one day? How am I looking for retirement?
• Health/Fitness. This bucket is the one I wear over my head at the gym. Could I run a 5k if my life depended on it? How's that 6-pack coming along? Will I be climbing a 5.12 any time soon? Am I old enough to start worrying about cholesterol? Am I getting enough sleep? Is anyone going to think I'm a fatty at my high school reunion?
• Personal Development. This is the bucket that would be painted in awesome colors if I had art skills. (I don't.) Do I want to learn some new guitar scales this year? Como es mi espańol? Have I read any good books lately? Are my coding skills improving at work? Why haven't I blogged in forever?

This guy is pretty serious about his buckets...

• Ron Paul. Ha, just kidding... he doesn't get his own bucket. (The only person I'm kidding is myself; I think I might have given him three.)

And last, but not least (or is it?), we have God. Or Jesus. Or Religion. Christianity. Whatever you want to call it -- it's a spiritual bucket. It sounds kind of like a ghost pail, and in practice it can be just as nebulous.

• Church/Spiritual Life. This bucket is the one I carry my Bible in. Have I been going to church x times a week? How is small group going? Am I reading my bible often enough? How's my prayer life? Am I giving the right amount financially? Do I teach as often as I want?

I guess the truth is, "for me, to live is some Christ, but mostly a bunch of other stuff."

Honestly though, are those other things bad? I truly believe they aren't. Keeping your house in order is a good thing. There's a lot of wisdom to feeding your important relationships, keeping a tab on your finances, maintaining your physical body.

The problem comes when I get way too invested in my bucket collection. God gives me this life, along with all the benefits and responsibilities it entails. I arrange them nicely on my wall and try to make sure they stay in good shape. Didn't Jesus say I need to have something to show for the talents I was given? He did.

What He did not say is that those talents are mine to own. I'm merely a steward, and God very well may come and decide He needs use of one -- or all -- of them at any time. The temptation we face at this point is to throw ourselves in front of them and declare that we have everything arranged perfectly. In what is a most ludicrous situation, there are times when I think God's intervention will mess up what I have going. Never mind that all I have belongs to Him. Never mind that He has graced me with His presence in coming to claim something with which I've been entrusted. Never mind that He knows best how to use what I have, and never mind that His purpose is to grow the Kingdom, rather than make my bucket-shelf look awesome.

I think Job dealt with that confrontation. He had all his buckets in a very nice arrangement. God gave him things and Job took really good care of them. As a direct result of Job's good stewardship, God allowed Satan to come in and kick the mess out of his buckets. He completely destroyed most of them, and nearly killed Job in the process.

That is not how it's supposed to work. At least, that's how I think. That's how Job's friends thought... and that's how Job thought too. We know that despite the major disruption, Job remained faithful to God (even amid serious questions), and in the end God gave him new buckets to hold.

The truth about life is that buckets come and go. If we're afraid to lose them, we bury them in the dirt like the unfaithful servant: "I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. So I was afraid and went out and hid your gold in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you." If we take great care of them, we may watch God grow them into something awesome, only to require them of us when we least expect it.

I don't know how to reconcile the fear of losing God's gifts with the investment required to take care of them. I do know it's something Jesus did really well. I also trust that God is a rewarder of those who seek Him.

Life is a good thing. I'm not going to worry about losing buckets to the point that I refuse to enjoy them. I only hope that if and when God comes to claim them, I have the sense to let Him do His work and anticipate what He's got planned.

Last week, the news was aflutter with Rick Perry’s withdrawal from the presidential race. This week, the big story is Newt Gingrich’s victory in South Carolina. If we are to believe the mainstream media channels and the pundit consensus, we may be in for Round 2 of Obama vs. Anyone-But-Obama.

Round 1 involved our current president’s 2008 showdown with John McCain-Not-Obama. McCain garnered 26.6% of eligible votes (down from 28.5% for Bush in '04), and Obama received 30.8% (up from 27.1% for Kerry). Independents and 3rd parties accrued 0.9%, while the other 41.7% stayed home. The fact that McCain obtained as many votes as he did was a reflection of serious disdain for Obama, rather than an actual base of support for McCain himself. What I heard from most of my conservative friends was “he’s not perfect, but at least he’s not Obama!”

As we look at a possible Round 2, the media and pundits are spouting that Mitt Romney-Not-Obama is the likely nominee, with Newt Gingrich-Not-Obama as an alternate. Actually, he is better known as Newt Gingrich-Not-Romney-Not-Obama. No one I know is particularly pumped about going to bat for Newt; they simply think he's a more palatable Not-Obama than Romney.

Either option leaves Republicans holding their collective nose and voting for a decidedly non-conservative candidate. In 2008, Democrat contender Barack Obama actually managed to inspire the Republicans more than any candidate within their own party. He stands to do so again.

As has been observed elsewhere, the failure of a single candidate to rally conservatives reveals the deeply-fractured nature of the party. More importantly, though, it reveals that the relationship between Republican leaders and their constituency is on the rocks. In short, the Republican Party is in trouble.

The Nature of the Game

Don't get me wrong; I'm not a fan of political parties in the first place. At one time, I thought the solution to our two-party mess was to have more parties. More parties equals more choice, right?

Alas, I have come to realize the truth: political parties serve only to limit choice. They do not allow politicians who agree on one issue to cooperate, for fear they'll be seen as "aiding the enemy." Parties discourage strong ideological principles in deference to the almighty club membership. Worse than this though, they relegate people to rigid, self-destructive groupthink. The Party encourages members to climb into a box and reject anything beyond those cardboard walls as a possible solution.

From the inception of partisan politics in the U.S., parties served to move our democratic republic away from a nation under the rule of law, guided by the will of the people. We have morphed into a nation under the rule of popular opinion, guided by banks and businesses with close ties to the government.

Let us leave the political world for a moment, and consider a modern professional baseball game. Both teams play by the same rules, and their singular goal is to out-score the opposing team. There is relatively little divergence from one team to another in terms of strategy. Despite all of this, true baseball fans are fiercely loyal to their own teams. No amount of success, roster movement, managerial change, charity involvement, nor any other such factors is going to make a fan of the Boston Red Sox don a Yankees jersey, or vice-versa. In fact, I would wager that these two teams could entirely swap rosters, managers, and owners – so long as they didn’t change the team name and location – and the fan base would remain the same. (I know I’ve just lost some of the baseball people for the rest of this article as they lie on the ground, twitching. No worries, friends – this is all hypothetical!)

While this arrangement is fine for baseball, it has some serious negative consequences when applied to politics. The Republican and Democrat parties as they currently exist are glorified sports teams. The fans are voters, and for far too long, they’ve been very loyal.

The Man Behind the Curtain

During any election cycle, rhetoric abounds about fundamental differences between the parties. If we are to believe politicians, then real ideological differences exist, and the choice for one or the other determines the direction of the nation. For the constituency, this is absolutely true. Some genuinely believe that the government can (and should) help the unfortunate, provide social justice, and keep corporations in line. Others hold that government is incapable of these things, and that the real role of government is to provide a level playing field and to ensure personal liberty.

At the leadership level, this is largely a false dichotomy. Election after election, certain agendas move forward with complete disregard for partisan shifts.

For instance, the debt ceiling almost always increases, regardless of party. The last time the debt ceiling was lowered was almost 50 years ago, in 1963. It was lowered twice that year during the JFK administration, before he was assassinated in November.

Both parties serve to increase the size of government, make military contractors wealthy, pass bailouts recommended by the Federal Reserve, interfere in the politics of other nations, incrementally reduce the freedoms of citizens… it’s a long list.

On display for voters is the narrative that Democrats and Republicans are locked in an epic struggle for control of the political ideology that will steer our nation. Behind the curtain is the ugly truth: This country is being steered in a single direction, regardless of who is at the helm. The only struggle in question is who will be paid to rubber-stamp the heading as Captain, and who will get to dole out the very lucrative contracts associated with maintaining the ship. In the end, the leadership of both parties will be living it up with their friends in First Class. The rest of us toil below decks and argue about which group of aristocrats has our best interest at heart.

Thus, the man behind Oz’s curtain is revealed. The danger is not that wealthy people are in charge, nor that wealth is divided unevenly among the citizenry. The real danger is two-fold: 1) We drones working and living in the common areas are never permitted to leave, to find another ship, nor to influence the direction of the one we’re on. 2) Most of us are completely unaware of our situation and the true nature of the game being played at the top.

The party elite (their “elite-ness” is derived only from connection to the party) truly do not care which group is in charge. They will get their money either way. Goldman-Sachs has no party affiliation. They will dole out contributions to either party as they see fit. Halliburton will continue to get contracts no matter who is in charge. The mainstream media will continue to shape the debate and then profit from the narrative they have created. The impetus to increase the size of government, to increase our military intervention overseas, and to continually inflate the monetary supply is not remotely threatened by any nominal conflict in congress nor any change in the executive branch.

An Idea Whose Time Has Come

Once the farcical narrative of partisan conflict has been exposed, it becomes much easier to understand the continual changes in Washington, to focus on what’s important, and to predict what is to come next.

We started with the observation that the Republicans are currently facing a scenario much like the one they did in 2008: voting for a candidate they disdain in order to avoid one they truly despise. In a case of it-would-be-funny-if-it-weren’t-so-sad, the Democrats are facing a very similar challenge this time around. Barack Obama has alienated much of his base by falling through on many of his promises. He did not draw back our military forces from the Middle East in a timely fashion. He has not closed the prison at Guantanamo Bay. He has not increased transparency in legislation, nor fought for civil liberties, nor made choices faithful to the Constitution. Amid continued economic disaster, all of this should spell defeat for any incumbent. However, if Republicans can only offer a repeat of their last nominee, they face annihilation.

Herein is demonstrated the political genius of the party elites. They are offering a choice between two candidates, neither of which is well-liked by either party. Yet, voters will get in line behind one or the other, depending on which team jersey they like best. Either way, the political leadership will get what it wants – they win. Either way, the people will be delivered something they don’t want – they lose.

The real contest is not between Democrats and Republicans, but rather between the Political Elite and the Citizen. Indeed, the Elite do their best to deny this fact and to propagate the idea that the partisan contest is real. Thus far, the Elite have been playing excellent chess. The Citizen has lost pieces all over the board and is facing an inevitable checkmate. Worse, he remains largely ignorant of his opponent’s identity. Despite the grim outlook, all is not lost.

One advantage remains to the Citizen that the Elite can never supplant. Party leaders have always known about this, and they fear it above all else. They make every effort to hide it from the Citizen, to keep it out of discussion, and to direct attention elsewhere. Nonetheless, in order to claim victory, the Citizen need only stand up -- and walk away from the board.

More and more, people are realizing that the current party system is not serving their needs. Occupy-minded Democrats and Tea Party-thinking Republicans are finding common ground in their opposition to bailouts for rich bankers and well-connected corporations. Adversaries of big government on the right and civil rights activists on the left are finding reason to unite over Federal encroachments on personal liberties.

The most recent evidence of this is displayed in the success of the Ron Paul campaign. Even within the Republican party, his Constitutional views on government are gaining support in the 10 – 15% margin. When you add independents into the mix, that number jumps past 20%. These supporters reject the monopoly claimed by party leaders over the political process. Though the leadership rejects him and his message, they are unable to squelch his influence. So long as party leadership continues to fail as a supplier of legitimate political ideology, it will also fail as a reflection of the people’s will.

Invasive Surgery

Yes, the Republican party is dying from the tumor growing on its heart; major surgery is needed. Any patient knows this news is difficult to bear, but for the party leadership, it is a death sentence. For too long, the leadership has been a cancerous growth feeding from and ultimately destroying healthy tissue. If you ask the tumor, it will never opt for removal. It will remain, draining resources and life until the patient is completely beyond recovery.

Right now there is only one doctor offering the proper surgery, and the tumor is in panic mode. It is doing everything in its power to intimidate, bribe, persuade, and otherwise coerce the patient to allow it quarter. Dr. Ron Paul has the scalpel in hand and over 30 years of experience with this exact form of cancer. He guarantees that the surgery will be painful and scary for a short time, but also that the chances of full recovery are excellent.

The Republican party has to ask itself whether it is ready to embrace this doctor and the life-saving surgery he offers. Otherwise, the tumor will stay, and the party will be on its own.

This is a problem for a lot of people; it leaves them with the idea that Paul would prefer bin Laden not face consequences for his purported role in multiple terror attacks over the last two decades. This is not Paul's position at all, but it bears some scrutiny.

First, it's worth mentioning that Paul called this one as far back as October 2003:

His analysis of our relationship with Pakistan hasn't changed since that time, and it's clear that he was ahead of the game early on. Paul didn't have some secret information that lead him to be correct in 2003 -- he simply used his understanding of our foreign policy in the Middle East and applied it to what he was seeing.

He was against spending billions of dollars in Afghanistan and Iraq. He was against risking thousands of military lives and those of countless foreign civilians to go after a terrorist who was in neither country. He was against attacking and occupying a sovereign nation without a declaration of war.

He was not against finding Osama bin Laden and bringing him to justice.

In November 2001, Paul introduced H.R. 3076, aka. the Marque and Reprisal act of 2001. He listed Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda by name as the targets of the proposed letters. These specifically grant the President authority to hire "privately armed and equipped persons and entities" to go outside U.S. boarders to seize bin Laden and any co-conspirators. The Constitution (Article I, Section 8) provides for Congress to grant letters of Marque and Reprisal to the executive branch as a response to threats against our national security.

The main idea behind this is that a relatively surgical force would be used to apprehend Osama bin Laden and any of his co-conspirators rather than an occupation force. Incidentally, it is a surgical force like this which actually achieved the goal of eliminating Osama in the end (of course, they were military rather than private).

So, given these facts, what is Ron Paul's beef with the way things went down?

1. Osama never stood trial nor had the chance to provide us with intelligence.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the al Qaeda operative accused of masterminding the 9/11 attacks, was apprehended in Pakistan in 2003 by Pakistani intelligence forces. He is being held at Guantanamo Bay and is set to be tried by a military tribunal for the crimes of which he is accused. If he is convicted, he will almost certainly face the death penalty.

Paul's argument here is that if bin Laden was a higher-priority target than Mohammed, we would ostensibly want to gain intelligence from him and have him face trial as well. The current version of the raid holds that bin Laden was unarmed. He could have been captured alive. He almost certainly would have been executed after trial. It makes little sense to me that we would not want to gain intelligence from him nor want to see him tried.

Incidentally, not everyone in Paul's non-intervention camp agrees on this issue. Michael Scheuer is the former head of the CIA's unit on bin Laden, and has sided with Paul on Afghanistan, Iraq, and blowback. He recently posted, "The death of Osama bin Laden is great news for the United States, and it is much better that he was killed rather than captured."

2. We used our military to invade a sovereign nation without permission.

This is hardly a concern for most Americans -- we've been doing that for a long time without regard for the Constitution. Some would argue that we're entitled to go wherever we want with impunity to avenge 9/11, but I disagree strongly. My most concise argument is to reverse roles:

Imagine that a private citizen of the U.S. has planned a successful attack on civilians in Pakistan. Our government is either incapable or unwilling to apprehend this citizen, and the Pakistanis want justice. Would they be entitled to enter our airspace and carry out a military operation without our permission? How would we react in that situation?

The real question is whether we're entitled to disregard the sovereignty of another nation just because we have superior military force.

In summary, Ron Paul was not opposed to capturing Osama bin Laden, nor to having him face justice. His concern is that we make our foreign policy and national security choices in a way that follows the Constitution and makes us safer in the long run.