Opus 2013-252: Beware of Hackers

I am leaving today for DEFCON.  This is an annual convention for hackers and wannabe hackers.  I go because my son is a geek and for years it has been a father/son thing we do.  It gives us a lot to talk about and there are enough non-technical sessions to keep my interest.

I don’t know how much I will be able to post or answer comments while I am there.  I don’t know what my son will set up.  There may be no break or I may go underground for the next five days. 

Either way the sun will come up and taxes will still need to be paid.  Keep it all in context.

homo unius libri

Opus 2013-251: The Dream Is in Bad Shape

Before the 13th Amendment, slavery was legal.  Because of the Dred Scott Decision, slaves had no rights.  If you are weak in history, this was a Supreme Court decision which responded to a slave going to court to attain his freedom.  His owner had spent time in a part of the country that had been declared slavery free in 1787.  When his owner died he claimed that residency made him a free man.  What surprised me was the local Missouri court sided with the slave.  On appeal the Supreme Court reversed the decision and said he was still a slave.  That was a disappointment but what laid the groundwork for the Civil War was the declaration that slaves had no rights and thus could not sue in court. 

One rationale that the slave owners had was that the slaves were an inferior race and needed the white masters to care for them.  They had security but no liberty.  It was the original Nanny State.

In the 1930's American blacks had liberty but no security.  In theory they were citizens but groups like the Klu Klux Klan made it very dangerous for them to be noticed.  Lynching was common and segregation was the standard. 

For a brief time it looked like the civil rights movement would bring real change.  Equal rights were being demanded and people of good will of all colors could see the logic and justice of that.  Then things like Affirmative Action became the game plan.  It seemed to be decided that the only cure for historic racial discrimination was more racial discrimination going the other way.  Black racism replaced white racism.  This of course could only be achieved by government subsidies and coercion.  So money was passed out and quotas were granted.

We have now gone full circle.  Blacks used to be persecuted and live in danger.  Now “African Americans” are living on the dole and special privilege.  They are still on the plantation, only now the Massa is a Democrat politician handing out welfare checks and patronage.  They must toe the line.  What else would explain the mindless voting and public opinion that runs at the 95% level.  Because they refuse to think for themselves or stand on their own feet “African Americans” now have no liberty but a form of security. 

This is progress?  This is freedom?  This makes a mockery of the words,

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

Going backwards won’t get us where we want to go.

homo unius libri

Opus 2013-250: Get Serious

We sometimes think that the saints of the past had no sense of humor.  We think of them as dried up old prunes.  John Wesley would perpetuate that stereotype because he comes down hard on frivolous, jocular worship.  In his writing though he sometimes can’t restrain himself from making observations that surprise me in their humorous candor. 

Here he is reflecting on a sick lady that he had been visiting and ministering to.

“I had much satisfaction in conversing with one that was very ill and very serious.  But in a few days she recovered from her sickness and from her seriousness together.”  (page 19)

Haven’t we all seen this.  When people face hardship they are very serious and open to spiritual things.  Somehow their interest wains when the problem departs.  Even pain only teaches temporary lessons to some people.

Some things never change.

Wesley, John.  The Works of John Wesley, Volume I, Third Edition.  Kansas City:  Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, 1979.

homo unius libri

Opus 2013-249: Scientific Method: Oatmeal

I am coming to the end of my time back east.  One of the challenges is to run out of certain food items as I leave.  If I leave part of a container it will be there when I get back.  Pasta does not get better with age when we are talking months.

I fix breakfast when I am here.  This year it has been mainly oatmeal or grits.  The new twist this year was some 10-15 minute oat meal from Trader Joe’s.  But as we wound down I found that on my 5 minute oatmeal I had too much for one and not enough for two.  My son suggested that we have a taste test.  It is one thing to declare something better but we decided to get scientific about it.  And to finish off one package.

We compared instant oatmeal, old fashioned oat meal and the thicker rolled oats.  The biggest challenge was to get them all to come out at the same time.  The next biggest challenge was to take the instant seriously.

It came out pretty much as you would expect.  Comments about the instant were “pasty” and “tofu.”  The old fashioned was acceptable but the long cooking, rolled oats were by far the best. 

So, if you had any questions, they are now answered.  Take the extra time.  We may have to endure politicians that we can’t stand but that is not necessary in the world of oatmeal.

homo unius libri

Opus 2013-248: Cornerstone Considerations: CUSA, Insurrection

Have you noticed how the president seems to make comments that divide the nation?  I have seen titles of articles that say he is the most divisive president we have ever had but I don’t bother reading them because I assume they are opinion pieces based on questionable research.  But it matches what I see.  Why?  One reason that the president is deliberately stirring up race riots is to find an excuse to take over the country.  I don’t think it will work, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a desire of his heart.

If he can cause enough violence in the streets it will give him constitutional power to suspend our rights.  From Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution:

“The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety require it.”

All he has to do is declare that the “public safety” requires his being able to arrest the trouble makers.  Abraham Lincoln did it during the Civil War.  I think Wilson did it during World War I.  I am sure it was part of the justification that Roosevelt used to inter the Japanese during World War II.  The precedent is available.

Later you see another justification in Article 4, Section 4

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened), against domestic violence.”

In addition to riots this could be one reason that he doesn’t want to secure the borders.  Call illegal immigration an invasion and you can take over Texas, Arizona and California. 

Of course it would be for our own protection.

I don’t think this is what the Founding Fathers envisioned.

homo unius libri

Opus 2013-247: Headlines: Jury Nullification

Most of you have heard or read about the recent interview with Juror B29.  Her response makes me think a little more about the concept of Jury Nullification. 

Jury Nullification is the belief that the jury has the right to ignore the instructions of the judge about what the law says and decide the case on their own understanding of the case.  I remember the one time I made it on a jury.  It was a civil case so we were simply dealing with who caused the accident and how much it was worth.  The judge told us that when we had heard all the evidence he would inform of what the law said and what our options were. 

This puzzled me.  I asked him what he needed a jury for if he was going to tell us how we had to decide the case.  It really did not make any sense to me at the time.  Now I see the point.

In the past I have been on the side of Jury Nullification.  That is because I don’t have a lot of respect for what I see happening in court rooms.  Judges and lawyers seem to be playing games instead of trying to achieve truth and fairness.  The last refuge of citizens is the jury. 

This juror showed me the other side.  She should not have been on the jury to start with.  She had already decided that Zimmerman was guilty of murder.  Her mind was made up before she took the seat.  In spite of that she listened to the judge, understood the law and what was required and made the right decision.  I salute her for that. 

In this case the law was there to keep people from making a judgement on their feelings and emotions.  It was there to set up a standard that could be applied to all people regardless of their class or color.  That is the point of the rule of law.

I am not convinced that Jury Nullification does not have it place but this points out to me that I can be just as wrong as anyone.  I can run with my emotions as well as anyone else.  Caution is called for.

This requires more thought.

homo unius libri

Opus 2013-246: Is it 2016 Already? Part 2 of 2

Why would I pull out of many elections?  Don’t I believe in democracy?  How about the saying that “all that is necessary for evil to triumph is that enough good men do nothing.”  Am I just being a sore looser?

I guess it all comes down to being a man of principle, not pragmatics.  I believe that God has established the principles of life.  I see the constitution as being supportive of those principles, thus I believe in the original intent of both the Bible and the Constitution.  I should always be asking myself what is right, not what is practical.  The “right” is determined by the written word not the wishing heart.  Here is where the believing part comes in.  Because I believe that God is ultimately in control, I believe that if I follow His rules, seek His path and do things His way, He will make it work.

For those who need a Bible verse, I have one.  If you are not a believer, skip this section.

(Proverbs 3:5-6 KJV)  Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.  In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

Sound familiar?  Do we really believe it?

Not only do I believe it, I must start putting it in action.  I accept the reality that I can’t wait for someone to have all of my religious beliefs to get my vote.  It ain’t gonna happen.  I know it.  My personal views are too fine tuned for that, or narrow if you prefer.  But there is a larger list that I can expect to find and if I don’t, go third party or skip the head of the ticket.

Don’t I believe in democracy?  No I don’t believe in democracy.  Democracy does not work.  It never has and never will.  The Founding Fathers set up a republic, not a democracy because they had studied history.  History and experience has shown that you can’t have everyone vote on everything.  As early as the days of Moses, Israel set up a multi-level system with leaders who acted as judges over those below them and brought there needs to those above them.  Greece, the seed bed of democracy could never rule itself. 

The Founding Fathers also understood that you needed a faith in what they would call “divine providence.”  Whether they were agnostics, deists, high-churchmen or congregational Christians they could agree on that.  They agreed that moral behavior, rooted in a divine authority was necessary for freedom and prosperity.  It was assumed and accepted.

So I may not vote for president next time.  It will not be because I have given up on the republic.  It will not be because I am desperate and desolate.  It will not be surrender.  It will be a mark of trust in a higher authority.  It will be a mark of refusing to sell my soul.  It will be a statement of faith and expectation. 

homo unius libri