Perri Nelson's Website

A major reworking of the site coming (I think)

2014-05-28T20:25:31Z

When I decided to resume working with the site I noticed that it had gotten to be quite slow. Then I noticed that a few of the pages would go to random other locations on the net, so I think that something might have been compromised.

The software this site runs on is ancient in terms of the Internet. I wrote it about eight years ago and it hasn't seen a serious upgrade since then. Even though I was careful to avoid the possibility of SQL injection (my database is clean by the way) and several other possible attacks, it's certain to be vulnerable to more recently discovered exploits.

In this site's lifetime I've posted over 1,400 articles and essays. In the earlier days most of them were just rants about current events or link fests, although I did put some meaningful content up (at least meaningful to me). I'm going to be downloading as much of that content locally as I can, as well as the comment threads, so it's not going to be lost forever.

Once I've collected it all I'm going to re-create the site. I'll be tearing down the old software and installing a recent build of WordPress. Then, over time, I'll bring some of the older content back, in a re-organized form. No, it won't all be coming back, but the stuff that I think is worthwhile will.

Be watching for the change. I think it's coming soon.

The voices in my head

2014-05-26T19:15:06Z

David tells me I should just go with what the voices in my head tell me as far as continuing postings go. Now I just have to decide which ones are worth listening to.

Well, it really shouldn't be that hard. After all, there aren't really that many. There is of course my own voice. I'm not altogether certain about that one. Then of course there's the voice of temptation. I've listened to that one altogether too much in the last half century plus.

Finally, there's that soft, faint voice of the Spirit urging me to do what's right and telling me when I haven't. I know that's the one I should be listening to.

"pa" misses my essays, and at least a couple of people want me to return to blogging, although I've never really had much of a readership. For a while I had a lot of site visits, but almost always that was tit-for-tat thanks to link exchanges and I'm fairly certain most people weren't really that interested in what I had to write, but more in where the link exchanges would take them.

I haven't really given serious thought to blogging here for quite a while. I've grown tired of politics and ideological nonsense. Yes, I'm a Christian conservative, and yes, I believe in our nation's founding documents, and the philosophy they represent. But I'm really tired of the half truths and innuendos that "both" sides of the political spectrum use to support their positions.

Liberals lie routinely and they ignore any facts that don't support their position. In some cases they twist the facts or they re-write history. They distort the plain meaning of words and their principal arguments are attachs on the character of those they argue with. On occasion there are some voices of reason among them who will use a proper argument and stick to honest debate, buth those people are fewer than they appear.

The problem I've found though, is that many conservatives do the same things - although there are far fewer of them that engage in personal attacks rather than arguments. Even so, some of the most "respected" voices on the right get right down in the mud with the left with the name calling and other garbage.

That's one of the reasons why I write essays about our rights and our founding documents. It's fairly easy to find decent source material. The words of the documents are straightforward even if 230 or so years of "interpretation" have twisted their meaning into something like the Florida supreme court's twisting of "shall" into "may not" and "may" into "must",

Another reason is that so many people seem honestly confused about the difference between real rights and the "rights" that everyone seems to want to assert these days. There are differences and most of the "rights" people are asserting have led to, and will continue to lead even deeper into tyranny and oppression.

Many of my Libertarian friends have no concept of ethics or morality. Many of the people I know on the right still believe too much in expediency. Those on the left seem to be either woefully misinformed, deliberately obtuse, or morally confused but yearning to be recognized as somehow "righteous" and just as tolerant as the Pharisees of old.

After 30 some years following a career path where I've alternately received tremendous praise as well as the occasional dose of hard reality - in a field I pretty much dedicated my working life to - I know that I'm far from perfect and nowhere near as "on top of it" as I once thought I was.

Still, I don't sit on the fence. I have a fairly firm understanding of what I believe in and why, and I'm learning more each day, both through prayer and study. But I also pay attention to my friends, family and people I grew up with on Facebook. What I see there saddens me.

Altogether too many people seem to go through life being blown about like leaves on the wind. Here's something shiney and new - let's share it. Oh that feels good - let's share it too. Never mind that half the many things they post contradict one another or sound like they promote the truth when they really twist a small kernel of truth to tell a horrible lie.

The thing is, whether we like it or not, there is Truth out there. The athiest will tell you there's no God. New agers will tell you that all religions are equal. Progressives will tell you that all morality and culture is relative.

Face it folks, it can't all be true. Pantheism, atheism and monotheism are not compatible. Humanism and Christianity are not compatible.

And our nation will not stand much longer without the people recognizing that the form of government our founders left to us is only sufficient for a moral and God fearing people. Our rights come to us from God, but some want us to believe that they come from government.

The left's notion of "equality", group rights, entitlements and the like all stem from an appeal to our basest nature. But the left isn't alone in falling for this. Some on the right are as well claiming that certain entitlements such as Social Security have been "bought and paid for" over the years - buying into the lie that government largesse is a Martha Stewart like "good thing".

That's why I think I just might start writing again. We've fallen away - not just from the ideals of our founding, but from our Creator. We need to come back.

Bernie Sanders is an idiot

2014-05-19T19:42:49Z

A few minutes ago I saw this image posted to a friend's timeline on Facebook. She captioned it "AMEN!"

I'm afraid I have to take exception to this. There is no excuse whatsoever for failing to take care of our veterans. None. That doesn't mean we shouldn't go to war when it's necessary.

There are times when it is necessary to go to war. But if a nation doesn't have the will to win and the persistence necessary to do so, THEN that nation should not go to war. Our problem as a nation is that we don't even remember how to win a war.

Our politicians talk about "exit strategies" and other such nonsense. That's exactly what such talk is, nonsense. The only truly viable "exit strategy" for any war is either total victory or defeat. Anything else, including timetables for an exit is merely a violent game with lethal weapons and it's totally immoral.

Our problem is we don't treat wars like wars anymore. We like to pretend we're the world's police. A goodly number of people often like to remind us that we're not. They're right, we should not be the world's police. We're one nation among many, and the internal affairs of other nations aren't any of our business.

I think there's a reason our military is part of the Department of Defense. It's there because our military forces are intended to defend our nation and our nation's citizens. If we're going to be the world's police then move the military into the Department of Justice. (No! That's a bad idea, so don't do it.)

But remembering the purpose of our military and the Department of Defense, if we're going to send our soldiers into harms way we owe them the honor and respect they're so often denied. And we most certainly owe them medical care in return for their service. Anything less is dishonorable.

Test post

2014-05-19T18:38:33Z

This is a test post using Blogilo. I'm trying out various remote weblog client applications until I find one that will work with the somewhat antiquated and quirky software I wrote for this weblog. This is because I can no longer use Windows Live Writer due to no longer using a Windows system.

It seems this program works well enough. So who knows, if I ever get into the mood again, I might start writing new posts.

Federal government misses the point (as usual)

2013-10-10T00:40:38Z

I always thought that the point of shutting down non-essential parts of government was to save money while you negotiated a way to raise more revenue or cut expenses on a more permanent basis. But then, I also hold the opinion that non-essential parts of government ought not to even be parts of government in the first place. Silly me.

Little did I know that shutting down non-essential parts of government actually means ramping up government so as to forcibly prevent citizens from enjoying public property. Little did I know that the point of putting government workers on furlough wasn’t to save money – but rather to push the costs out into the future.

Our “government shutdown” is a sham. Worse, it’s costing more than it will ever save. Those furloughed government workers? As I understand it they’ll be putting in for government benefits as soon as they’re eligible. The processing of all that costs money. Then, when the government resumes the sad state of affairs known as “business as usual” and they return – well then they’ll be getting back pay. Sure, they’ll have to return those benefit checks. That is if anyone bothers to enforce that provision.

We’re told by our masters that raising the debt ceiling won’t raise the debt. While that’s technically true it’s one of the biggest lies you’ll be hearing. After all, raising the debt ceiling isn’t the actual act of borrowing money. It just enables the spendthrift to borrow more. You know that once it happens the government will borrow more money it can’t repay until that ceiling is hit again.

This fight over the debt ceiling and “Obamacare” is nothing more than grandstanding. It’s clear that the Democrats and Socialists want to lay the blame for a painful shutdown on the Republicans. It’s also clear that the Republicans aren’t exactly unified here. Give it a week or two. It will all blow over. The Republicans will cave, we’ll raise the debt limit. We’ll fund “Obamacare”. The deficit will rise again.

The federal government will continue its unwarranted expansion at an undiminished pace. The fifth column will see to it. And we’ll all be a bit less free. Because obviously, the solution to a government shutdown is the same as the government’s solution to everything else.

More government.

Natural rights, the state of nature, and society

2013-03-15T04:50:15Z

As I indicated yesterday, I’ve recently had a couple of discussions with people that don’t really seem to understand today’s topic. I even had one today regarding of all things immigration. In that conversation an individual made this statement.

…the only principle one needs is ‘open immigration’ as a consequence of absolute individual rights.

This attitude represents a gross misunderstanding of individual rights and their relationship to an ordered society. Our rights are not “absolute” by any stretch of the imagination. They are given to us by God and they are a part of our very being, but there are limitations upon them. For the irreligious, agnostics, or atheists out there that don’t accept the notion that they are given to us by God (I do feel sorry for you) the fact remains that they are fundamental, unalienable rights that arise as a consequence of our existence.

They are not granted by government. They are not granted by other men. They are a part of us. In that sense they may seem absolute, but we must consider the existence of other men.

Assume for the moment the existence of no society. Men are in their “natural” state, or as John Locke called it “the state of nature”. Here all men have perfect liberty and freedom to do what they will with themselves and their possessions. Property is defined by taking something from the commons. No man needs to ask permission of another. We are completely free within the bounds of the law of nature.

This is true for ALL men in the state of nature. No man depends upon another for his liberty. No man requires the permission of another to feed, clothe or shelter himself. All are equal, and all are equally sovereign. There are no constraints upon our liberty except those imposed by the law of nature.

In the state of nature, our individual natural rights appear absolute. In the state of nature there are no borders. In the state of nature we are beholden to none and the only law that constrains us is the law of nature. Yet it is by this law of nature and the equal sovereignty of all men that we learn that our inherent natural rights do have natural boundaries.

Do I have the right to life? Then by extension so does my neighbor. Prudence and wisdom dictates that if I wish my neighbor to respect my right to life then I must respect his as well. The very law of nature teaches the wise man to learn the golden rule. Do I have the right to take from the commons a piece of fruit for my nourishment? To claim it as my property? To eat it? So too does my neighbor. If I take it and spoil it I have done my neighbor an injustice and violated natures law.

May I take a bit of sheltered land from the commons and claim it as my resting place for the evening? If I then make improvements to it, enhancing the shelter and comfort it provides do not my actions make it mine? Can not the same be said for my compatriots?

This is the state of nature. Natural law prohibits greed, for we can only take that which we can hold and use. Natural law requires that we respect one another’s rights lest our own be infringed. Natural law shows us that our rights cannot infringe upon those of another for we would not abide another’s infringement upon our own.

In the state of nature, there are some rather obvious fundamental, unalienable rights that each of us has by our very being. Each man has the right to life, to liberty, to property, and to pursue their own happiness however they see fit. Beyond this, it is clear that all men have these rights equally, and that all are equally sovereign, empowered to punish violations of the law of nature as they see fit and in proportion to the severity of those violations.

Why then would a man abandon the state of nature to enter into a society or to submit himself to a government? Quite simply for more security, safety and comfort. For while absolute liberty may seem a wonderful thing, mankind, in the state of nature, lives a precarious existence. Foraging for food, without agriculture (a product of society), is time consuming and by no means certain. Without some form of weapons technology (either a personal invention or a product of society), hunting for game is also by no means certain. Living the life of a hunter/gatherer is fraught with peril and filled with labor. For survival’s sake men must band together and cooperate.

Human nature rears its ugly head as well. It should come as no surprise to anyone that men will seek pleasure and be self indulgent. No one should be surprised to find that men avoid work wherever they can. It should come as no surprise that some men are physically stronger than others, that some men are inconsiderate of others, that some men are simply bullies. And no one should be shocked to find that in such circumstances as man might find himself in in the state of nature absent our better nature and the constraints of a society that some men will take advantage of their greater strength to infringe upon the rights of others – taking from them the food they have gathered, casting them out of the shelter that they have provided for themselves and so forth. For though in the state of nature all are equally sovereign and all are blessed with equal rights, not all men are willing to honor the rights of others, recognizing no right but greater strength of sinew and bone.

These reasons compel thoughtful men to band together for their common good. While one may be stronger than any other, or even any two together, surely an overwhelming number of others can punish his violation of the laws of nature or his infringement upon their natural rights. While alone a single man may starve or perish from exposure to the elements, a group of men caring for one another will have a better chance of survival and even comfort.

It is for these reasons that men form societies. It is for these reasons that they will agree together upon a means of governing themselves, yielding their personal sovereignty to that of the society. Societies are formed for the mutual benefit of mankind as well as to secure the individuals natural rights from the infringement of those outside those societies. Entering into a society means leaving the state of nature, exchanging it for mutual security, survival, and happiness in the face of a harsh world and the tyranny of those who will not recognize the rights to life, liberty, property, or the pursuit of happiness.

The society has no more power over its members than they grant it themselves. For just as a man may freely give up the state of nature to enter into a society with other men, he may freely choose to return to the state of nature forsaking the society of others. In doing so he abandons the protection of that society and returns to the insecurity and peril of a life apart from it. Those who remain in the society though should look upon him with suspicion, as they look upon all who are not a part of their society, for he has chosen to no longer abide by the social compact that binds the society together.

Once a society is formed, certain synergies come into play. Men in a society will recognize that some are more skilled at finding and improving shelters while others have more skill at hunting or acquiring foods. Soon the society will take advantage of the various strengths of its members providing a way to accumulate and set aside more for leaner times, to gain greater comfort and the like.

Again, the nature of man comes into play, for some who are not members of the society might see the society’s gain and covet it for themselves. Unwilling to enter into the society they may seek other means to acquire what the society has accumulated. That accumulation is the property of the members of the society, according to whatever rules they have established for the society. Quite naturally the members of the society are entitled via their individual right to property to defend it. And so a society finds the need for common defense, agreed upon borders and more. It takes, from the authority granted to it by its members sovereign authority over its territory and all within it.

As the founders said in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness

This is why men leave the state of nature – to protect their unalienable rights. This is why the founders fought against Britain, for Britain and her King had become destructive of their rights. This is why the United States was established. It is the consent of the governed that grants the United States the authority over its citizens that it has. And it has that authority only so long as it continues to secure the natural rights of its citizens.

We have now seen that although our rights are not granted to us by our government, but are a part of our very nature that they are by nature’s law limited in scope. We have seen why it is that governments are created by men and where they get their powers – and what sovereignty men must give up to join into the society that is ordered and protected by those governments. We have also seen how those who choose to remain in the state of nature, or to leave the society to return to the state of nature set themselves against that society and declare themselves to be foreign to it and forsake its protections and the privileges of its citizens.

What then of my friend who says “That would be fine and dandy if i would have joined, but I was born into the world as is. Why can I not choose to opt out of the governments society?”

I think the answer is quite obvious. If he chooses to opt out, he declares himself to be foreign to that society. If he is foreign to that society he must still abide by its rules and laws while within its jurisdiction. If he fails to do so he declares himself to be at war with the society. When he does that, he had best hope that he has the strength and the fortune to evade the society’s magistrates – for the society’s obligation to protect its members and to secure their safety and happiness demands that it punish the transgression.

More on this (hopefully) later. John Locke deals with the notion of how children are brought into a society by their parents, how it is that their parents are responsible for them and how their rights are less than fully developed while they remain children, for they cannot be sovereigns until they are raised out of a state of nonage into maturity and reason.

You don’t have any constitutional rights

2013-03-14T04:50:51Z

Seriously, you don’t. You might think that you do, but the constitution grants no man any rights. Neither, for that matter, does the Bill of Rights (with one possible exception) nor any of the other seventeen existing and ratified amendments to the constitution.

Article 1 of the constitution deals with the structure, election, and powers of the legislature. Not a single mention is made therein of any rights whatsoever, although a few privileges are recognized and a few privileges are granted. But not a single right is recognized nor granted in article 1.

Article 2 of the constitution deals with the election, powers, duties and responsibilities of the executive. Not a single mention is made therein of any rights whatsoever. Again, not a single right is recognized nor granted in article 2.

Article 3 of the constitution deals with the structure, powers, and limitations upon the jurisdiction of the supreme court. Not a single mention is made therein of any rights whatsoever. Once again, there is not even one right recognized or granted in article 3.

Article 4 of the constitution places certain limitations upon the sovereignty of the states. Not a single mention is made therein of any rights whatsoever, although the citizens of each state are entitled to the same privileges and immunities of the citizens of the several states. This article also makes the only guarantee to be found in the entire constitution. That guarantee is made not to the people, but to the states and it is a guarantee of a republican form of government.

As a side note, Senator John McCain recently said that the founders prohibited the defense of America’s borders. It’s obvious that he never bothered to read article 4 of the constitution. Right after the guarantee of a republican form of government comes this clause.

“and shall protect each of them against Invasion;”

That’s more than mere permission to defend the borders, it’s a mandate to do so. I’ve always thought that John McCain had a poor understanding of his role as a Senator. I’ve long known that he has little regard for the federal governments obligations as well as the explicit limitations placed upon it by the constitution. I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he’s simply ignorant, although I’m sure a few of my readers will say it’s not ignorance but arrogance that best characterizes him.

But, back to my main topic…

Article 5 of the constitution defines the process for amending the constitution. Once again, this article makes no mention whatsoever of a single right. Nor does it mention a single privilege, immunity or entitlement, but it does prohibit amendments to the constitution from depriving any state of equal representation in the Senate.

Article 6 of the constitution deals with the validity of the debt accrued by the United States under the articles of confederation. It establishes that the constitution is the highest law of the land. It establishes the supremacy of federal laws enacted in pursuance of the constitution over all other laws. It establishes that treaties made under the authority of the United States, in other words under the authority granted by the constitution, are the supreme law of the land. It requires oaths of all Senators, Representatives, State Legislators, The Executive office, the Judicial officers and all State officers to support the constitution, and it prohibits using religion as a test for holding office. But, it neither recognizes nor grants a single right.

Article 7 of the constitution deals with the ratification procedure and follows up with the correction of a few errata. It is followed by the signatures of many of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention. But nowhere does it mention a single right, either in recognition or to grant one.

You won’t even find mention of a single right in the preamble to the constitution, except where the preamble notes that one of the purposes of the constitution is to “secure the Blessings of Liberty”. This doesn’t provide a grant of the right to Liberty, but rather it recognizes its existence. That’s right, the only right even recognized in the main body of the constitution is the right to Liberty and that is treated as a pre-existing right.

So what then do people mean when they talk of their “constitutional rights”? Perhaps they mean something to be found in the Bill of Rights. To tell you the truth, if they think that’s where our rights come from, they’re wrong.

The Bill of Rights consists of twelve proposed amendments. Of these the first was never ratified by the states, and the second languished for two hundred and three years before it was finally ratified – as the most recently ratified amendment, the twenty-seventh. Most people are accustomed to thinking of the remaining ten amendments proposed by Congress in that original document as the Bill of Rights. Give the document a good read. You will not find the “granting” of a single right anywhere in it other than the rights of the accused in criminal prosecutions (amendment 6). Rather the rights described in the Bill of Rights are discussed as though they already exist and restrictions are placed upon their infringement.

The rights of the accused in criminal prosecutions look to be a special case – they are the only enumerated rights that require the participation of people other than the person enjoying them. It could be argued that these rights were recognized as pre-existing. It’s certain that trial by jury at least had a long history before the drafting of the Bill of Rights. Even so, the wording of the sixth amendment implies a grant of rights in a way that none of the other amendments of the Bill of Rights does:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

That the constitution, in particular the Bill of Rights merely recognizes all other rights rather than granting them is made plain by the ninth amendment. If the constitution or the Bill of Rights were written for the purpose of granting rights then the ninth amendment would be superfluous. In fact it’s very wording would be suspect.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The ninth amendment indicates that the constitution merely enumerates certain rights. It also indicates that the enumeration is incomplete. If that enumeration does not deny other rights retained by the people then there must be other rights that the people already have. The remainder of the amendments (11 through 27) merely place further restrictions upon the governments ability to infringe upon the right to vote, establishing that the right to vote, particularly in federal elections, cannot be infringed base upon race, color, previous condition of servitude, or sex, and establishing that people as young as eighteen cannot be denied the right to vote based upon their age.

All of this begs the question: If the constitution does not grant us our rights, where then do they come from? I think that the answer to that is “self evident”.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

More on that in a follow-up to (hopefully) come soon. I want to discuss natural rights, natural law, and the meaning of the “state of nature” and what it means when we leave the state of nature to enter into a society. At least one person I’ve had a conversation with recently seems to have a major misunderstanding of that topic.

A Capitol Day

2013-03-11T03:08:47Z

Today, Lucas and I went to visit the state capitol. We also took a trip to the Hogel Zoom and a short drive up through Emigration Canyon. Quite naturally, I took my camera. I should have brought my shorter lens though.

It’s almost hard to believe that this building is 99 years old.

Well maybe not. After all, there’s some symbolism there that modern people would likely not even bother with, like the twin lions standing for Integrity and Fortitude. Oh wait, I guess some modern people would, since these were sculpted just four years ago…

But… would we moderns sculpt something like this? This statue of Massassoit was cast in Bronze some 37 years after it’s original was made, but still over half a century ago. Political correctness today might not allow such a thing.

Inside the capitol building is even more impressive than outside. Four alcoves around the central chamber under the cupola caught my eye.

Of course, there’s much more to see, and my pictures don’t do it justice. That, and you aren’t getting the full sized pictures even if you open the links to the larger images. The interior of the capitol is awesome, including the Senate chambers, the House of Representatives chambers, and the old Supreme Court chambers. The Supreme Court now meets in a different building – but… that’s a story and pictures for another day.

Lot’s of stuff to see and do around here. Pictures from the Zoo in a future post.

Antelope Island in Winter

2013-03-03T03:50:04Z

I took my son to Antelope Island today. This is the first time I’ve gone in the winter. We didn’t see too much wildlife but, as always, there was some.

We saw a grand total of seven bison. We also saw a rather small field mouse (not a rodent of unusual size) near the ranch. There we were fortunate enough to encounter a few critters that I hadn’t seen on the island before, including two great horned owls.

Antelope Island is a beautiful place… even in the winter. I know that my son enjoyed it, and so did I.

Why that’s just riveting

2013-02-13T00:59:07Z

I arrived home from work today to see a large cardboard box by my door. Well, O.K. it wasn’t that large but it was heavy at just over 38 pounds. Finally, after over a year of waiting I can begin my next maille project. Opening the box I found… paper. But underneath the paper were 24 plastic bags and an oblong plastic wrapped gizmo. They were coated in machine oil so I took a couple out and set them on my small work tray.

I unwrapped the bag (yes, the bag was still wrapped) and the gizmo. Now I have a rivet set tool a large bag and a small bag.

The small bag contains rivets, the large bag contains overlapped rings of 16 gauge mild steel. And they’re all coated in oil (mild steel does rust after all). I went and grabbed my hauberk (made of 16 gauge stainless steel butted rings with a 5/16” inner diameter) for comparison and pulled out a rivet and a couple of rings.

Here’s the comparison. You might notice that the new rings have a somewhat larger diameter than the stainless rings I used in the hauberk. They’re also not as shiny, and if you click on the image you’ll see they’re coated with gunk. There’s also an area where the ends overlap and have been flattened and a hole punched through. One thing I’ve noted already, the hole is not uniformly positioned. It’s right on the edge of the flattened area in some cases, in others it’s right in the center. In this case, the hole in the two pieces doesn’t quite line up. That will make setting rivets fun (he said with his tongue stuck so hard into his cheek that it’s a wonder anyone understood what he said, including himself).

So now what? Well, obviously we’ve got to set a few rivets and start making chain. But first how about just a ring and its associated rivet?

And the first closed ring with set rivet.

Finally, a single unit of European 4 in 1 riveted maille.

The fun has begun. I have 24,000 rings and rivets to put together to make my next hauberk and coif. I may end up needing more rings. We’ll see as I get closer to project completion. The last one took me 100 hours to build. A good part of that was purely mechanical as I got the hang of opening and closing rings fairly quickly. Setting the rivets and joining the rings into maille seems to take a bit more time (these 5 took me about 15 minutes, but I was taking pictures too), but it has been a couple of years.

Maybe I’ll be done in time for the Renaissance Festival this spring. We’ll just have to see.

Visualizing our national debt

2013-02-06T01:46:30Z

I just hope our government doesn't learn what comes after “trillion.”

You might want to keep this for your records to keep reminding yourself of what our government is doing to the American people and our country. God help us if things don't change very soon.

This graphic is mind-boggling....

One Hundred Dollars

$100 - Most counterfeited money denomination in the world. Keeps the world moving.

Ten Thousand Dollars

$10,000 - Enough for a great vacation or to buy a used car. Approximately one year of work for the average human on earth.

One Million Dollars

$1,000,000 - Not as big of a pile as you thought, huh? Still this is 92 years of work for the average human on earth.

One Hundred Million Dollars

$100,000,000 - Plenty to go around for everyone. Fits nicely on an ISO / Military standard sized pallet.

One Billion Dollars

$1,000,000,000 - You will need some help when robbing the bank. Now we are getting serious!

One Trillion Dollars

$1,000,000,000,000 - When the U.S government speaks about a 1.7 trillion deficit - this is the volume of cash the U.S. Government borrowed in 2010 to run itself.

Keep in mind it is double stacked pallets of $100 million dollars each, full of $100 dollar bills. You are going to need a lot of trucks to freight this around.

If you spent $1 million a day since Jesus was born, you would have not spent $1 trillion by now... but ~$700 billion - same amount the banks got during bailout.

One Trillion Dollars

Comparison of $1,000,000,000,000 dollars to a standard-sized American Football field and European Football field.

Say hello to the Boeing 747-400 transcontinental airliner that's hiding on the right. This was until recently the biggest passenger plane in the world.

15 Trillion Dollars

$15,000,000,000,000 - US national debt (credit bill) has just topped the 15 trillion 2 months before Christmas 2011. Statue of Liberty seems rather worried as United States national debt passes 20% of the entire world's combined GDP (Gross Domestic Product). In 2011 the National Debt will exceed 100% of GDP, and venture into the 100%+ debt-to-GDP ratio that the European PIIGS have (bankrupting nations).

$ 114.5 Trillion Dollars

$114,500,000,000,000. - US unfunded liabilities. To the right you can see the pillar of cold hard $100 bills that dwarfs the WTC & Empire State Building - both at one point world's tallest buildings. If you look carefully you can see the Statue of Liberty.

The 114.5 Trillion dollar super-skyscraper is the amount of money the U.S. Government knows it does not have to fully fund the Medicare, Medicare Prescription Drug Program, Social Security, Military and civil servant pensions. It is the money USA knows it will not have to pay all its bills

If you live in USA this is also your personal credit card bill; you are responsible along with everyone else to pay this back. The citizens of USA created the U.S. Government to serve them, this is what the U.S. Government has done while “serving The People.”

Unconstitutional

2013-01-27T19:57:27Z

A federal appeals court ruled that several of President Obama’s so-called “recess” appointments were null and void last week. Why? Let’s first look at what a “recess” appointment is…

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.¹

So, the President can "fill up vacancies" during the "Recess of the Senate". Not much to see here right? The President does have this power right? I was asked about this about a year ago when at least one of the appointments in question was made. The Machiavellian said “I just read the Congressional Record and there in black and white, the Senate is in pro forma session.” At the time I wondered, as I do now, just exactly what that meant, and if the distinction was important enough to matter. My conclusion was “I don't like what he's doing, but unless something extraordinary happens it's likely to stand.”

Well, apparently something extraordinary has happened, at least in part. The fight over Richard Cordray isn’t over yet, because that particular appointment wasn’t part of the ruling, but the Federal Appeals Court for the District of Columbia appears to have found their pocket copy of the Constitution.

The court case turned on whether the Senate was in recess when Mr. Obama made the appointments during a holiday break early last year. The Constitution allows a president to unilaterally install nominees to positions that normally require Senate confirmation when the Senate is in recess.

But Republican lawmakers held minutes-long meetings every few days, and lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that meant the chamber was technically in session.

While the plaintiff's case centered on those sessions, the court went a step further, declaring that Mr. Obama's appointments fell outside the bounds of his authority. It ruled that the Constitution's description of a recess refers only to the period between the roughly yearlong formal "sessions" of Congress, rather than during an effective break in proceedings. In this case, the Republicans contend Congress started a new session on Jan. 3, and Mr. Obama made the recess appointments on Jan. 4.²

We'll probably hear more of this - it will eventually be appealed to the Supreme Court after all. The Wall Street Journal's article's penultimate paragraph states...

Friday's ruling conflicts with the executive branch's position since at least 1921, when President Warren G. Harding's attorney general, Harry Daugherty, issued an opinion concluding that the president may make valid recess appointments whenever he determines "there is a real and genuine recess making it impossible for him to receive the advice and consent of the Senate."³

Of course, the attorney general can't actually define a recess. I still have my doubts about whether we’ll win this one and see our Constitution actually upheld. I like the ruling that a recess refers only to the period between the formal sessions of congress. On the other hand, the notion of a “pro forma” session of the Senate bothers me too. After all, Article 1, section 5 has this to say…

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.⁴

It seems to me then, that for the Senate to be "in session" requires a minimum of 51 Senators to be present. Otherwise there isn't the necessary “Quorum to do Business”. If the long-standing tradition of making recess appointments whenever the executive “deems the Senate to be in Recess” stands, surely a Senate that objects can retaliate quite easily. All they need do immediately upon resuming their session is adjourn it again, calling another recess for less than three days. As long as the adjournment is for less than three days, the House of Representatives doesn’t even have to agree to it. If they do this quickly enough, those recess appointments might last a grand total of a single day.

That’s the type of political bickering I’d love to see. Let the Senate and the White House play that game for a while. Eventually the people will become so disgusted with both of them that we’ll see some turnover in the compost heap we call Washington.

¹Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text <http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html#2.2.3>
²Court Rules Obama Recess Appointments Unconstitutional - WSJ.com <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324039504578263772492524536.html>
³ibid.
⁴Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text <http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html#1.5.1>

Snow

2013-01-11T01:55:06Z

I missed the last good sized snowstorm we had in Utah. Well, I say “missed”, but maybe not so much. Let’s say rather that I wasn’t here while it was happening, and the snow hadn’t quite melted off this morning. For the entire time I’ve been back, there’s been snow on the ground. And today…

Yesterday ended up reaching the 40s. Snow was melting. This morning it was relatively warm. At lunch time I debated not wearing my jacket…

The snow arrived just in time for my ride home. As I left the building it was snowing… and there was a good dusting on the sidewalks. I have to walk about three good-sized blocks to get to my car. There was almost 1/2 an inch on the ground by the time I finished that walk, my coat was covered in snow, my hair had a mix of melted snow and ice in it and I was cold. Then it took nearly an hour and a quarter to drive the 9 miles to my apartment. My doorstep had snow 5 inches deep.

I love snow. I just hope that it’s a little easier to navigate to and from work tomorrow.

Fix the filibuster?

2013-01-08T05:15:34Z

A long time friend of mine recently shared a link on Facebook from a group demanding that we “Tell the Senate: Fix the filibuster”. The summary text with the link said:

“The filibuster is an antiquated provision in Senate procedure that has given a minority of right-wing senators the ability to paralyze the Senate. Speak out and tell the Senate to fix the filibuster.”

I seem to recall just a few years ago back when the Republican Party held the majority of the Senate (albeit by a thin margin) that the filibuster gave a minority of left-wing senators the ability to paralyze the Senate and block many a judicial and ambassadorial nomination, not to mention block passage of many acts that the majority wanted to pass. Why in 2003 the Junior Senator from the great state of New York said (although I don’t believe she was talking about filibusters, but rather speaking in favor of minority dissent in general)…

“We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration.”¹

There was talk then among the right-wingers that the Senate needed to fix the filibuster, even a reference to the “nuclear option”, yet nothing was done.Why? Because even then the majority knew that political winds shift and that they might not always be the majority. Now the majority is discussing blocking the ability of the minority to block cloture (again, but it’s a different majority this time, and a big shift for them). In 2005 the Democratic pollster Westhill Partners found only 30% support for changing the rules to allow a simple majority to end a filibuster.²

I’d like to see real filibuster reform myself. Once upon a time the filibuster meant something. If you wanted to block cloture you had to have the floor and keep it. Tales of Senator Byrd’s bladder control are legendary, although even fourteen hours and thirteen minutes wasn't enough to block passage of the Civil Rights act.³ Now all you’ve got to do is find 40 like-minded people that don’t want something to come to the floor for a vote and you can go about your business.

Now, I know that the Senate, and our current President (constitutional scholar though he claims to be) willfully ignore the constitution – especially article 1 section 7 – as well as parts of article 1 section 5 (you know… about when and for how long the House or the Senate may be in recess) and parts of article 2 section 2 (you know… about how the president may fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate), but I’m sure that there is at least one part that the current majority in the Senate will hold dear…

“Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.”⁴

Yes, that’s the second paragraph of article 1 section 5. And you know that the Senate will want to make sure that that part of the constitution at least is honored. (By the way, I’ve heard from the right calls to “impeach Nancy Pelosi” – this is why it can’t be done, even though I’d love to see her out of the House. You can’t impeach a member of the House of Representatives or of the Senate. In theory it should be easier to get rid of one – after all it only takes two thirds of a single house. In reality? It’s not going to happen.)

Well, if they can pass the rules change so be it. It won’t be the first time that Democrats OR Republicans have tried. But the winds will eventually shift again. The Senate ultimately gets to decide how it goes about its own business. If they want to eliminate a long standing Senate rule designed to keep the majority in check and to allow any senator to “speak as long as necessary on any issue”, that’s up to them. Now if we could only get them to remember the rest of the Constitution too.

¹ Hillary Rodham Clinton Quotes <http://womenshistory.about.com/cs/quotes/a/qu_h_clinton.htm>
² Nuclear option - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option#Nuclear_option_readied>
³ History of Filibusters <http://www.core-online.org/News/filibuster/filibuster3.htm>
⁴ Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text <http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html#1.5.2>

Fantasy Genre Speaker Series: Aftermath

2013-01-06T00:30:06Z

Well, I went. The event was free, and yet it was worth many times the price of admission. It was not, as I feared an analysis of The Lord of The Rings like so many people do – looking for hidden meaning in the story and other such nonsense. Instead it was a rather brief introduction to Dramatica Theory, as applied to The Lord of The Rings.

This was the sort of thing I was looking for when I accepted the invitation to the event. It’s the sort of thing I’ve come to expect from the seminars at Norwescon, although there’s a lot more going on there than there was here, but this was free. I would have gladly paid for the privilege of listening to Tracy and Laura Hickman, and for the interaction with other people who were interested in writing.

The session began with an introduction of the speakers, and they continued the introduction. All very nice. Then we got started.

The first topic was Joseph Campbell’s Mono-myth. There was much discussion here about how mythology is the universal language of humanity and that “story is meaning – the why to every question”. A brief exposition of the story cycle in the mono-myth followed, beginning with the “call to adventure”, the “helper”, and crossing the threshold from the world of the everyday into the world of power and adventure. Moving on into tests of the character, more helpers, and the attaining of the prize.

At about this point in the discussion, Tracy made the point that all too often this is where the story ends. The readers or listeners or watchers are then cheated of the real point of the story. He used, as an illustration car chases on the news. Their stories on the news inevitably end with the capture of the miscreant – and the miscreant always has the same look on his face… “huh?”. Television stories and news stories seldom ever deal with the consequences of attaining the goal, and thus we learn nothing from them.

The mono-myth goes through two more stages in its cycle – the flight or return to the normal world and the crossing of that threshold – with the main character always being changed. We’re reminded that you can never go home. When you get there life goes on as it always has for all the people you left behind, but you are forever changed.

There was a lot more, including the discussion of epic story structure – where many stories are woven together into a single story. A discussion of four “journeys”, including the objective journey, the main character’s journey, the impact character’s journey, and the subjective journey of the main character and the impact character. There was a fairly long exercise assigning each of the major characters of the movies to character types for each of these journey-stories too.

Following this, there was a brief question and answer period. Questions ranged from self-publishing, e-books and the digital morass of dreck that so many “authors” produce (I believe the term Tracy used was “electronic slushpile”.). These days it seems anyone with a word processor and an Amazon account can be a published “author”. But that doesn’t make those “published” works worth reading.

Some interesting observations:

An author needs an audience of between 2,000 and 5,000 people to really be successful.
You’ve got to write something worth reading. There’s a lot of really bad “self-published” work out there.
No one will value your work if you don’t. Don’t give your stories away. Always charge something, even if you only require an e-mail address from the people reading your work. An e-mail address by the way is a very valuable thing to acquire – it’s a way of keeping in touch with your readers and getting feedback as well.

All in all, it was a worthwhile session, and I hope to see and attend more of these.