Perri Nelson's Website

For those we lost, We will not forget 09/11/2001

“I consistently believe that when it comes to whether it's Native Americans or African-American issues or reparations, the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just offer words, but offer deeds.”
— Barack Obama, July 27, 2008 (emphasis added)

“Barack Obama is an arrogant, racist, Marxist ass!”
— Perri Nelson, July 30, 2008

<< Older Posts

Google Chrome

Published Thu, Sep 4 2008 9:45 PM
Technorati Tags: Computers and Internet, Cool Stuff

I both like and dislike this browser. I downloaded it yesterday and I've been trying it out at home. I've been using Firefox 3.0 for a while now, because it's far superior to any of the versions of Internet Explorer that I've tried. I don't know if I'm ready to switch permanently yet, but so far I haven't found much not to like (other than the reported security vulnerabilities, and the initial license agreement).

One of the things that I think is really cool is how this browser handles things like the TEXTAREA HTML element. There's one that appears in the comment form. On every browser that I've used (until now), you can't resize the text area, so if it's too small to be usable, you're out of luck. This is one of the deficiencies in my comment form that I haven't bothered to fix yet.

I was reading some of the recent comments on the site and noticed something odd about the comment form while I was using Chrome. It's there in the bottom right hand corner of this image…

So I moved my mouse over that little triangle of dots and clicked and dragged. The text area changed size! That doesn't happen with Internet Explorer or Firefox! I don't know about you, but I think that's a pretty cool feature.

I wonder what other gems I'll find while I play with this new browser.

Oh. I found one thing I definitely don't like about it. Brinkster's live chat doesn't seem to work too well with it. It seems that the text window in that application hangs from time to time. I still like the resizable text areas though.

All in all, not a bad Beta, for the most part.

Comments (3) | Trackbacks (0)

Natural and invented rights

Published Wed, Sep 3 2008 6:04 PM

One of the “great debates” of our time has to do with our rights. Despite the recent decision in the Heller case, there's still some debate and argument about our right to keep and bear arms — even though the second amendment to the Constitution expressly prohibits infringing it. The idea of “State's rights” is considered a quaint notion to many, despite the existence of the tenth amendment.

Just about all of us are aware of the unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, described in the Declaration of Independence. Nobody in their right mind would declare that we don't have these particular unalienable rights, even though not one of them is mentioned in the United States Constitution or its amendments. Our unalienable rights, which come to us from our Creator are many, and not all of them have been enumerated. The ninth amendment to the Constitution recognizes that to be the case.

Amendment IX

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

We hear a lot about some of our unalienable, unenumerated rights. Among these are, allegedly, the right to “privacy”, the right to an abortion (euphemistically referred to as a “woman's right to ‘choose’”), the right to die (“death with dignity” and “assisted ‘suicide’”), and the universal right to health care.

I wonder about these sometimes. Some of our rights, unenumerated though they may be, are self-evident. The right to life seems obvious. Even before the existence of human governments, humans lived. Presumably humanity had a right to life even then. (OK, I take it back, some of the environmental extremists condemn the existence of humanity as an affront to nature — go figure. I guess some people that believe themselves to be in their right minds would declare that we don't have those unalienable rights I listed earlier.) Together with the right to life, I assume that there's a natural right to die, although I believe that it truly is a debt that we all must pay rather than a “right”.

But a few of these so-called “rights” don't seem to be unalienable natural rights to me. For example, the right to “privacy” created by the courts some time back doesn't seem to be a natural right to me. If you accept the Darwinist's premise that we evolved from apes in the African jungles, then where was our right to privacy then? We had a right to life to be sure, but a right to privacy? With no walls? If, on the other hand, you reject the Darwinist's premise and instead believe that we were created, where was our right to privacy then? We were created naked, and it was only after eating of the fruit that was forbidden that we even noticed our nakedness. The right to “privacy” isn't a natural right, it's an “invented” need resulting from the fear engendered by our own shame. Oh, to be sure, I enjoy my privacy, and wish to see it protected, but I don't believe it's an unalienable natural right allowing me to do anything I please.

How about the “universal” right to health care? This one's certainly not a natural right, and I don't believe it's an unalienable right either. Oh certainly, if a person is in need of care, compassion dictates that care be given. Christians are told to give aid to those in need (“go and do thou likewise”). But there's no “right” to health care. Go back, once more, to our origins whether you're a Darwinist or a Christian. In those days before civilization did health care even exist? Somehow I don't think so. Rather, I think that health care is the product of human compassion and learning. We may from time to time in our lives have a need for health care, but I don't know that we have a right to it.

No one has a right to demand compassion from another, although for our own soul's sakes we might have an obligation to be compassionate. But isn't that an individual obligation? It's certainly not the obligation of government.

Where our rights are truly unalienable and come from our Creator government has an obligation to protect them. When they're merely the invention of mankind, I think that that obligation is less clear, and in some cases non-existent. Assuming that government must protect a right to privacy, a right to abortion, and a right to the fruits of the labor of others (ala Social Security, and Universal Health Care) seems to me to doom government to failure.

Government's principal obligation is to protect our unalienable rights, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It can best do this by protecting us from our enemies, both foreign (as in States and non-governmental organizations like Al Qaeda that wish to do us harm) and domestic (as in the criminals and domestic terrorists that would do us and our liberties harm), and by staying out of the way as we enjoy our rights and pursue our happiness — which ultimately will prove to be for our own benefit. When government cannot protect us because of a concern for the enemy's “privacy” we are all likely to lose our lives or our liberties. When government cannot afford to give us “the best” health care it's likely to be rationed and we'll receive too little too late.

We really need to re-examine our concept of rights from time to time. We might find that there's a difference between what we see as natural rights and what we merely desire. We might find that some of our “invented” rights ought to be trumped by our “natural” rights as well. After all, shouldn't the right to life trump the right to choose? Perhaps what we really need to examine is the difference between “liberty” and “license”.

Comments (2) | Trackbacks (1)

The Virtuous Republic trackbacked with "Constitutional Post of the Day"

Wednesday Hero - L/Cpl. Ryan T. McCaughn

Published Wed, Sep 3 2008 8:28 AM

Lance Cpl. Ryan T. McCaughn
19 years old from Manchester, New Hampshire
1st Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force
November 7, 2006

"I just can't believe it," said Nicole Cote, mother of L/Cpl. McCoughn. "It's not supposed to happen this way. Your kids aren't supposed to leave you." McCoughn joined the USMC during his Senior year of High School. "He said he needed to do this. He said if he could keep one dad from going to Iraq and he could take his place instead, then he'll feel like he's accomplished something."

Lance Cpl. Ryan T. McCaughn was killed on November 7, 2006 while conducting combat operations in Anbar province, Iraq. He leaves behind his mother, father, step-father and two brothers.

These brave men and women sacrifice so much in their lives so that others may enjoy the freedoms we get to enjoy everyday. For that, I am proud to call them Hero. We Should Not Only Mourn These Men And Women Who Died, We Should Also Thank God That Such People Lived

This post is part of the Wednesday Hero Blogroll. For more information about Wednesday Hero, or if you would like to post it on your site, you can go here.
Wednesday Hero Logo

Wednesday Heroes is published every Wednesday by Indian Chris. None of this material originates with me, but I'm proud to host it.

Comments (1) | Trackbacks (0)

Finally, I can vote for John McCain in good conscience

Published Fri, Aug 29 2008 9:49 AM

John McCain has finally made his Vice Presidential pick. He chose the governor from Alaska, Sara Palin. She's a conservative, and she's a political reformer. And naturally, the left has already started to look for dirt. According to the Associated Press…

More recently, she has come under the scrutiny of an investigation by the Republican-controlled legislature into the possibility that she ordered the dismissal of Alaska's public safety commissioner because he would not fire her former brother-in-law as a state trooper.

If that's the worst they find I'm not worried. It would have been worse if she ordered the dismissal of Alaska's public safety commissioner because he would not hire her former brother-in-law. Anyway, we'll be hearing more about this from the left soon.

One of the things I like about her is that she's willing to do what it takes to reform not just government, but her own party. She ousted a governor during the Republican Primary to get elected. She's also willing to take on Congress, rejecting Ted Steven's pet project.

“Thanks, but no thanks on that bridge to nowhere”
— Alaska Governor Sara Palin, accepting the Vice Presidential Nomination

[Update: It seems quite natural that the “Republican-controled legislature” in Alaska would be investigating Mrs. Palin — after all, according to the Wall Street Journal…

[S]he took on not only a sitting governor from her own party but also Alaska's Republican establishment -- vowing to clean up a political system that had been rocked by an Federal Bureau of Investigation corruption probe.
After handily winning, her popularity in Alaska soared as she went on to sack political appointees with close ties to industry lobbyists and shelved pork projects.

Now that's what I call a reformer!]

The problem of setting limits on government seems to be similar to herding cats. As soon as you get one cat going in the direction you want, two or three others take off in a completely different direction. With government it's much the same. As soon as you reign in one bureaucratic department, two or three others expand their reach.

I noted in a recent post that laws are made to restrict behavior. Laws made to restrict the behavior of the government are particularly difficult to craft successfully. Government intrudes in our lives in so many ways that establishing restrictions on its reach would be a never ending process. Once you managed to restrict its reach in one direction you'll find that it's extending its reach in two or three new ones.

This is what I like about the tenth amendment…

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

That's the way to restrict a government — tell it what it can do and prohibit it from doing anything else. Now if only we can convince our Legislators, our Presidential candidates, and our Courts to abide by that amendment.

This linkfest is for the 29th, 30th, and 31st of August, 2008. If you have something interesting you'd like to share, feel free to link it here and leave a trackback. Just remember the trackback policy.

For the best exposure, go to the blogger's oasis and use the linkfest chooser to choose the posts you'd like to hook up with.

Comments (9) | Trackbacks (27)

Are we free or not?

Published Wed, Aug 27 2008 6:31 PM

As some of you that follow this blog know, I went camping a couple of weeks ago. The trip was timed to coincide as closely as possible to our sister in law's fiftieth birthday. We (my wife and I, and her sister and brother in law, and her parents) pooled our funds and purchased a new sewing machine for her. Apparently, my wife and I (we made the actual purchase) committed a cardinal sin in choosing the retailer where we exchanged our community funds for the machine — we bought it at Wal-Mart. While talking about it around the campfire one night, Stan mentioned that he doesn't shop at Wal-Mart because they're “unfair to their employees”. I practically bit my tongue off to keep from entering into a long argument, for many reasons. But, his comment got me to thinking.

I wonder how it is that Wal-Mart is actually “unfair to their employees”. If I recall correctly, Wal-Mart isn't unionized. They don't have a collective bargaining agreement with their employees, and many employees are stock-holders — they own a piece of the company. Is it perhaps because they aren't unionized that they're “unfair to their employees”?

Somehow, I just can't accept this concept (and it may not be the basis of Stan's argument). Collective bargaining agreements have a tendency to be unfair to the employer and the employee alike. It becomes next to impossible to fire an employee for incompetence or even malfeasance. Wages and job security in collective bargaining agreements are often set based upon tenure rather than merit, so working harder isn't likely to result in higher pay, and a better employee may be laid off simply because a poor employee has been with the company longer.

Is Wal-Mart's “unfairness” related to their benefits package (or lack thereof)? Again, I don't think so. When a person chooses to seek employment at any business, they are selling their labor for money. They are unlikely to be loyal to the company, and unlikely to work their entire career there. If the company chooses to offer lavish benefits, that's actually something that ought to be considered as a part of the total compensation package. If the company doesn't, the prospective employee ought to consider that before deciding to sell their labor. Choosing to sell your labor for less than it's worth isn't wise, but the company is under no legal obligation to provide benefits beyond the salary they offer to the prospective employee.

Finally, Wal-Mart employees choose to work there. They enter into an “at will” employment arrangement. Yes, Wal-Mart can fire them if they don't perform, and doesn't have to give an explanation. Is that unfair? I don't think so. After all, the employees can quit at any time too, without having to give notice. Nobody forces the employees to work at Wal-Mart. They exercise their liberty and choose to work there. If the company is unfair to their employees, the employees can vote with their feet, and choose to work somewhere else.

That's the essence of freedom.

Comments (1) | Trackbacks (0)

<< Older Posts