Author: thewriterinblack

I’ve been cranking on the beta edits for Alchemy of Shadows before getting it out to the proofreader/copy editor.  So here’s another snippet:

---

I woke on Jeff’s couch the next morning to the sound of thumping on the door.  I heard Jeff moving in his bedroom as I sat up and wiped at my eyes.

The thumping sounded again.  I stood up and took a step for the door then hesitated.  Not my apartment.  Not my place to answer.

As if in response to my dilemma, Jeff stuck his head out the door to his bedroom. “Adrian, could you get that?”

I waved in Jeff’s direction and walked to the door.  Through the peephole, I saw Becki, her hand raised to knock again.  I opened the door.

Becki’s hand started to come forward.  She stopped.  I grinned.  My timing had been perfect.

“Hey, Adrian,” Becki said. “How’s Jeff?”

“I’m fine,” Jeff said from behind me, his voice sounding strangely distorted.

I glanced back and saw him barefoot, wearing sweatpants, a toothbrush in his mouth and foam trickling down his chin.

Becki raised her hands in mock fear. “Oh, no!  It’s rabid!  Call animal control.”

“Very funny, sis.”

“I thought so.” She grinned. “But you’d better hustle if you’re going to make class.”

“Yes, mother.”

“And you Adrian?”

“Thursday, so just got afternoon classes.”

“Excellent!” Becki held up her hand for a “high five.” Puzzled, I slapped my hand against hers and wondered what she was thinking.

She did not leave me wondering long.

“You–” she pointed at Jeff. “–can get to class.  You–” she stabbed me in the chest with her finger. “–can take me to the hospital to check on Darryl.”

I looked at Jeff, who shrugged.

“Better go along with her or she’ll be just…well, it won’t be pretty.”

I chuckled and held up my hands. “Fine.  Fine.  I surrender.  But…can I maybe get breakfast first?”

“No,” Becki said, then smiled. “You’re doing me a favor, so I’ll take you to breakfast.  But–” she leaned close and sniffed. “–Maybe a shower?”

Eeep!  I had gotten so wrapped up in working on beta edits for Alchemy of Shadows (Soon, my precious.  Soon.) that I almost forgot to do a post today.  So, here’s a snippet.

---

 

I was packing the last of my alchemical supplies into a case when someone pounded on the door.

“Open up.  Police.”

Becki’s hands snapped up to cover her mouth.  Jeff looked at me, his eyes wide.

“What do we do?” he whispered.

I shrugged. “Open the door.”

Becki went to open the door.  I still had my hands in my bag, feeling for the jar I wanted.

The door opened.  A police officer stood in the doorway.  I quickly twisted the cap off the jar.  The police officer wore dark glasses, even in the poorly lit hallway.  His hand rested on the butt of his gun.

I heard the snap of the release of the retention strap on the holster. “You.  Hands where I can see them.”

I turned, lifting my arms as though raising my hands.  The police officer started to draw his gun.  At the top of the arc of my arm motion, I flicked my wrist and opened my hand.  The jar went tumbling across the room, spilling its contents in a cloud in its wake.  The jar hit the police officer in the chest just as his gun started to come up.  He drew a breath, probably in preparation for speaking.  His face went slack.  He crumbled to the floor.

Becki’s eyes rolled back in her head and her own knees buckled.  She collapsed on top of the police officer.

Jeff started forward but I held a hand in front of him. “Wait.”

Jeff paused and looked at me.

“Don’t breathe the dust or you’ll be down there too.

He nodded and took a deep breath and went to grab Becki, pulling her out of the rapidly settling cloud of sleeping powder.

“So what do we do now?” He asked.

“We get out of here.  Did you notice the glasses?” I turned on the light next to me, then crossed to reach the light next to one of the beds.  Jeff caught the idea and set Becki on the other bed and turned on more lights.

“He’s one of those things?” Jeff asked.

“Ridden by one, I think.  Whether the police in general are after us, or just this one, I don’t know.” I stood staring down at the police officer on the floor. “If the police are after us they’ll probably have a description of my car, the Green Monster.”

“What are we going to do.”

“Get out of here first.” I grabbed my bags. The powder had settled enough. “Can you get Becki?”

Jeff nodded and hoisted Becki into a fireman’s carry.

My mind raced as we descended the back stairs toward the exit.  The last time I had to do back to back identity changes was before the modern day of ubiquitous identification and government computers all networked together.  It took time to insert data into the system.  And while I still had an emergency stash of gold, I did not have much ready cash.  I would have to sell some gold, but that would have to wait until pawn shops were open in the morning.  First we had to get out of town.  And avoid the police.

We reached the exit door.  The red and blue lights of a police cruiser flashed outside.  I peered at the car, shielding my eyes against the glare.  No one seemed to be inside.  It seemed there was only the one police officer.  Police cruiser in one direction, Monster in the other.

“How dare you challenge this poor, oppressed (or victimized) person?”

Hear that a lot?  I do.  Whether it’s daring to contradict some member of a so-called “marginalized” group or challenge the statements of someone who was victimized in some way (or was just present when someone else was victimized), doing so will raise strident objections from certain groups of people.

Those people are wrong.

The late science fiction (and pretty much every other field) writer Isaac Asimov reported in one of his autobiographies (sorry, no link, I read them in “dead tree” years ago) a conversation in which he explained to someone that there is nothing about oppression that confers virtue on the oppressed.  Historically, people who have been oppressed are more than willing to oppress others when given the opportunity.

While the Good Doctor was speaking of tribes and nations, the same remains true on an individual level.  Being a victim does not make one good or noble or wise.  It does not confer expertise on any subject, not even the subject related to the victimization.  No more does my being in a traffic accident make me an expert on automotive design.

It’s possible that someone who is good and noble and wise can be a victim, certainly.  But the foolish and the vile can also be victims.  Having been a victim does not in and of itself change that.

So, no, someone or some group having been a victim does not make their positions unassailable.  It does not mean that no one could, or should, argue with them.  It does not make their motives unquestionable, their knowledge given, and their proposals the only acceptable ones.

And when victims lash out, especially when they lash out having been challenged, we might make allowances for their emotional response from what happened to them but, here’s the thing, sooner or later that excuse stops working.  It is not an unending license to attack everyone who disagrees with them while being shielded from any responses.

If a person is so emotionally damaged from the event that they cannot bear any contradiction, then that is all the more reason not to take them seriously.  Perhaps their time would be better spent seeking healing from their trauma than in trying to force public policy to fit their emotion-laden mold.

And if they are going to put themselves forward, or allow themselves to be put forward in an effort to drive that public policy, then they need to recognize and accept that it is right and proper for people to challenge both their positions, and their qualifications to put forward those positions.

And “something bad happened to me” is not a qualification for anything.

Sorry about missing the last few days.  I’ve had a lot going on plus I’ve been fighting off (and losing the battle) the early stages of a cold.

Some people say that rights are something granted to you by government.  That you have something as a right because the government says you have it.  A related argument that people make is that a thing can’t be a right if the government can take it from you.

Both of these are absurd propositions.

First off consider what it means if rights only exist because the government says they do.  That directly implies that rights don’t exist if the government says they don’t.  If you take that position, then nothing government does can ever be “wrong”.

Let’s look at some examples to see where the government granting rights, and therefore is able to take them away, leads.

In March of 1492, the then government of Spain, specifically the Joint Catholic Monarchs of Spain, Isabella I of Castile and Ferdinand II of Aragon, ordered the expulsion of all the practicing Jews from Castile and Aragon and all their territories and possessions (including essentially all of modern Spain as well as additional territories).  This, of course, was entirely proper (given our presumption that government grants rights) since the government is simply rescinding the right of those Jews to live in Castile and Aragon and possessions.

There can be no objection to this, of course, since the right to live there was granted by the government and therefore could be taken away by the government.

In 1836 the “Treaty of New Echota” called for the removal of the Cherokee from all lands east of the Mississippi.  Some few moved voluntarily in response to this treaty.  However, in the end the Cherokee were forced first into concentration camps, then on the horrible Trail of Tears in forced migration to the west.

There can be no objection to this, of course, since the right to live east of the Mississippi, or to live at all, was granted by the government and therefore could be taken away by the government.

In 1838 the then Governor of Missouri issued a proclamation that the new religion of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) were to be treated as enemies of the State and exterminated or driven out.  (This order was not rescinded until 1976).

There can be no objection to this, of course, since the right to live in Missouri, or to live at all, let alone practice ones religion, was granted by the government and therefore could be taken away by the government.

In 1934, among many other things, German law stripped Jews of their German citizenship, forbade them from marrying or having sexual relations with non-Jews. (There was much worse to come, of course, so let this stand in proxy for that.)

There can be no objection to this, of course, since the right to citizenship, to marry, and who one might have sex with, were granted by the government and therefore could be taken away by the government.

Well, we could go on and on.  If one takes the view that rights are granted by government and follows that through to its conclusion that therefore government can rescind those rights at its pleasure, then there is no atrocity, no matter how heinous, that government can do and one is left with no basis to object.  If your right to life comes from government, then it is equally valid for government to rescind that right and kill you.

No, if rights exist at all, they must exist independent of government.  They might be, as the Founders of the US stated something a person is “endowed by their Creator” or simply something they hold simply as the virtue of being human.  This is the only way that one can say that a government does right or wrong.  If rights come from government then nothing a government does can be wrong.  Only if rights are inherent in being human can say that a government does wrong.

The people who made up the Continental Congress did not think it necessary to go through this reasoning to come to the conclusion.  It was “water to a fish” to them.  Thus: “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 rights are Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness, that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, securing their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Governments do not grant rights, not in the ultimate sense.  We may use the word “right” to refer to some things that are not innate human rights, but are tied to the form of government.  The right to vote is a big one there.  But when it comes to the basic human rights, they are completely independent of government.  Government does not grant them.  Government can not rescind them.  Government can only uphold them or infringe upon them.

And when government infringes upon them, it is government that is wrong.  And it is the right of the people, collectively or individually, to stand against that government and say “no.”

History, of course, is replete with examples of governments trampling on the rights of the people.  Indeed, that seems to be the norm more often than not.  It is only when the people, united in their determination to enforce their basic human rights stand up and force government to recognize their rights, when they are willing to put their all behind the rights not just of themselves but of all men and women within their reach, that “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” becomes an achievable idea.

It happens when to these ends “We Mutually Pledge To Each Other Our Lives, Our Fortunes And Our Sacred Honor.”

I’m seeing people marching, begging the government to strip them of basic human rights.  It brought to mind this poem I jotted down some years back in another incident where those in power chose to strip us of the right of individual choice offering the illusory promise of security.  It’s something I knocked off rather quickly, without worrying too much about tight scansion and rhyme, but it does express my feelings on the matter.

Chains
By
David L. Burkhead

©2010 David L. Burkhead, all rights reserved.

Wear your chains lightly, about neck and legs and wrists.
They are not so heavy these chains, not now anyway.
But chains they remain.

Dress up your chains in fine designs and smith-wrought filigree
Paint them gold and call them gorgeous jewelry.
But chains they remain.

Exhort others to share your chains, every man and woman and child.
For how could they be chains, if shared all equally?
But chains they remain.

Raise your voice in anger, at those who deplore your chains.
Say they are not chains you’ve taken on willingly.
But chains they remain.

Take pride in your chains.  Stud them with rhinestones.  Polish them with care.
Rejoice in your chains, in raucous revelry.
But chains are not for me.

No, not for me.  I know what I look like.  For my daughter.

A couple of months ago, we were in one of the local malls and saw a stand advertising tryouts for modeling.  Well, okay.  I was immediately suspicious–the way to bet on such things is that they’re scams.  My daughter wanted to do it, though and I decided that we’d give it a try and I’d keep a close eye out for the “hook”.  Filled out the form and dropped it in the box.

A week ago, we got a text back.  We’d been selected for the tryouts.  My daughter was ecstatic and then bounced down to panicky.  It’s okay, I reminded her.  The worst that happens is they say “no” (because I was going to keep a close eye out for the trap).  I do remind her that it’s still most likely some form of scam but we can at least go along far enough to see.

So, we make the appointment.  Saturday at 1:00.

We get down there and we see that they’ve set up a short runway and a little audience area out in front of it.  And my daughter panics.  Oh, no!  She can’t get out there in front of all those people. (I’m silently like “Hello.  Modeling.”) I tell her that I won’t force her, but I would encourage her (wanting to teach her to overcome her fears).  I see that the forms for applying say there are three things–runway, photo shoots, and “talent” and the applicant can choose one or more of them to participate in–and I suggest she ask and see if she can just do the part she is comfortable with.

We talk to the person in charge, no, my daughter has to do the “runway” and “talent” portion (which can be singing, acting, or reciting a bit of “ad copy” as though doing an advertisement) and if chosen will then go on to do a photo shoot.  Athena at this point chooses the ad copy one and so we wait for her turn.

Before that there’s a big rah-rah meeting of the person running this with the hopefuls.  Among other things they show select pictures of people who’ve been successful before. (My daughter’sthinking this is a good sign as in “see they’ve had successes before”. I’m thinking more “trying to get people emotional and willing to take the bait”–chumming the water as it were.)

When she has her turn, it doesn’t go well.  She forgets her line and…well, it doesn’t go will.  She is, however, offered a chance to come back for a re-try.

And the re-try was tonight.  Athena nailed her lines and did quite well on the runway portion (compared to her previous and to the other “contestants”).  And yes, she “passed.”

So we go to see what the next step was.

And there it was, the hook.

In order to proceed we had to agree to a photo session with their photographer.  I had a CD with me with photos from the last set done with Oleg Volk–a professional photographer whose work has appeared in a number of places. “Oh, no, that isn’t good enough.  We need paper.” (You don’t have access to a printer?) “We need…”

You know, if I were in a better place, I might have gone ahead and done the photo shoot just for the hellofit.  Yeah, the price was high, but for my daughter’s sake she’d at least have the photos and the memory.

But there would be no “modeling.” The fact that they were requiring we use, and pay, their photographer, and pay their rates ($300 for a “three outfit” session, in which we provide the outfits) told me that’s where they’re making their money, not commissions on getting gigs for models/talent.

So…pass.

In any case, here she is:

 

This march of the children (yes, let’s let those that the law does not recognize as maturely responsible enough to drink alcohol, and who are trying to claim they are not maturely responsible enough to purchase even a .22 rifle for target shooting, make public policy) had a bunch of kids carrying signs.  One of those signs asked the question (at least I think it was a question–apparently “punctuation” had to make way for political indoctrination in the school this child attended) “Is freedom more important than safety”?

Yes.  Next question?

Okay, here’s a bit longer answer.  There are threats in the world.  Some of them are unintended and impersonal:  accidents happen, illnesses, things that don’t involve any malice directed toward you.  And some of them are very personal–people who mean you harm whether it’s directed at you specifically or if you just happen to be there and anyone would do.

The world can be a scary place.  We all want to be safe.

But couching the question in terms of Freedom vs. Safety they actually are choosing between two approaches toward achieving ones safety.  The first, is the “Freedom” approach.  Take personal responsibility for ones safety.  Take the personal actions that one believes necessary to achieve an acceptable level of safety.

The other approach is to eschew personal freedom and turn over the task of keeping one safe to someone else.  That person or persons will take authority over your safety and give you instruction on what you’re permitted and/or required to do toward that end.

Some folk reading this are already seeing the problem.  And that problem is a big one:  How do you ensure that the “someone else” given authority over your safety will actually make your safety his, her, or their primary priority?  How do you prevent them from dismissing, or even sacrificing, your safety for some other end?

And that’s not even addressing the question of what to do when the supposed guardians of your safety themselves become a threat.

It’s part of a larger question:  how can you guarantee that another person will place your interests first and not their own?

The answer people who clamor for safety over freedom don’t want to hear is:  you can’t.  The ones trusted with your safety, unless it is in their own interest otherwise, can decide to leave you to your fate at any time.  History has shown that while some few will put the safety of those in their care even against their own self interest (parents looking out for their children might be an exception to “few” and even that is questionable in the larger scope of history) that’s a pretty long-shot bet.  In the end, those you would entrust with your safety look out for themselves long before they look after you.

Look around.  Can the police (or fire departments, or other emergency services) save you?  They police have won court cases saying that they have no responsibility to protect you the individual, just “society” (which looks very much like “society” is just another word for “those in power”).  Most of the time, the police officer is not going to be on the scene when you face a threat.  Until the police arrive you are very much on your own.  And even if they are present, that is no guarantee they will be willing or able to help you.  The deputies of the Broward County Sheriff’s Department were not the first to refuse to put themselves at risk to protect others.  They will not be the last.

You must take responsibility for your own safety.  You need to have fire extinguishers and smoke detectors to help you stay safe in the event of a fire.  You need to have first aid supplies and knowledge in case of accidents or injuries.  And you need to be prepared to defend yourself against those who mean you harm.

No one else will do it for you.  No one else can do it for you.  No one can be as well positioned to take action to keep you safe as you are.  Even when they do come to your aid, you have only yourself to keep yourself safe until they do arrive.  And you need the freedom to do what is necessary both to protect yourself in the event, but to prepare in advance against the event.

Benjamin Franklin said famously:  “Those who give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” He said that because it’s a fool’s trade.  To give up liberty, to put ones safety in the hands of someone who almost invariably will put his own hide before yours, is to give up the very safety you seek.  It’s paying a con man for sweet sounding words that in the end evaporate to nothing.

If I may paraphrase Economist Milton Friedman, “The society that puts safety before freedom will end up with neither. The society that puts freedom before safety will end up with a great measure of both.” (The original contrasted Freedom with Equality rather than Safety, but the phrasing works here too.)

It isn’t perfect safety.  There is no perfect safety.  But it’s the only safety you’ve got and you get to make the choice of how much is enough, how far you’re willing to go to secure your own safety and the safety of those you care about.

Freedom vs. Safety?  Freedom is safety, the only safety you can trust, where the authority, and the responsibility, is in your own hands.

This is basically a deep-fried, bacon wrapped, cheese-stuffed meatloaf but that’s a pretty big mouthful for the title.  It’s thoroughly decadent.

This makes a rather small amount compared to most of my “Feeding the Active Writer” recipes, but it’s fairly easy to do as an “assembly line” process.  You can be preparing the next roll while the first one is cooking.  That way you can make 3-4 in a batch if you need a bunch for a week’s worth or for entertaining.  Or just do one for a meal or two.

Ingredients

• 1 lb ground chuck
• 1 tsp crushed rosemary
• 1 tsp thyme
• 1 tsp ground pepper
• 1 tbsp garlic
• 2 eggs
• 8 slices bacon

Heat your deep fryer to 325

In a small bowl, mix everything through the eggs thoroughly.

Spread some waxed paper or foil to work on and weave the bacon into a mat:

Spread the ground chuck mixture on the bacon mat, leaving a bit of bacon hanging free on three of the edges.

Place cheese in a strip on the ground chuck

Roll up the meat and cheese (the foil or waxed paper makes this easier) and pin down the free ends of the bacon with toothpicks.

Put it into the basket of your deep fryer and lower the basket into the hot oil.  Let it cook until the bacon is crisp.

Remove the toothpicks, cut into slices, and enjoy.  3-4 servings.

Note how the world, according to Norse belief,  began–sparks from Muspelheim, the land of fire, met ice from Niffelheim, the land of cold frost, and there the world was created.

Heat on one side, cold on the other.

A heat source and a heat sink and everything we know in between.

That’s the basis of thermodynamics right there and thermodynamics is at the heart of every dynamic process in the universe.

Now consider the Norse end of the world–burned by the fire giant Surtr? A “heat death” to the universe?

Okay, they got a little confused about what is meant by a “heat death” but “heat death” is still a term that could be applied.

Clearly modern physics confirms Norse theology.

Now, the above is meant as humor but there is a bit of bite to it.  If I took the time, I could probably find quite a bit, or more than a bit, more from Norse belief that can be tied to modern science.  All it takes is a little creativity, a modest knowledge of modern science, and the willingness to ignore or wave away anything that doesn’t fit.

Think about that before you put forward your own belief as being “scientific” or “confirmed by science” or anything of the sort.  And that’s not just religious beliefs but political, social, economic, or any other sort of belief.

At it’s core, science is less about asking “how do I show that I am right” so much as asking “how do I know if I am wrong” and meaning it.  Ask “what must never happen if my idea is wrong” and check to see if it ever happens.  Ask “what must never happen if my idea is right” and check to see if ever doesn’t happen.

If you can’t come up with something that, if it happened, or if it failed to happen, or if it happened at the wrong time or in the wrong amount, would not lead to the conclusion that the idea is wrong then the idea is not science.

This is called falsifiability and any idea that cannot be falsified were the right circumstances to occur–where there’s no place where we can say “if we see this, or don’t see that then our theory is wrong”–is not science.

Many people claim many things as rights. The Constitution lists certain things as rights but, via the Ninth, expressly states that just because it’s not listed doesn’t mean it is a right. Thus, something can be a right without being listed in the Constitution. Or, “in the Constitution” is a sufficient, but not necessary, condition for something to be a right.

Specifically the Ninth Amendment reads:

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

Remember, in the philosophy behind which the USA was founded, basic human rights came first.  They are inherent in being human.  Governments neither grant nor remove them (only secure or infringe).  The Constitution does not grant rights.  It merely spells out some particular rights that the government is forbidden from infringing.

If one wants to say that something is or isn’t a right then “it’s in the Constitution” ends it. If it’s listed as a right in the Constitution it is. Period. The folk who wrote the Constitution said, in effect, “this is a right that the people have”.

If it’s not so listed, however, we’ve only begun. We haven’t established one way or another. “Not in the Constitution” is the beginning, not the end.

But, given some thought, we can generally work it out.

The key thing to remember is there is no right to violate someone else’s rights. (Note, this is a little different from what I discuss elsewhere, where someone, through their own actions can put at hazard their own right–for instance, if someone presents a credible immediate threat to your life and you kill them in self-defense, you don’t violate their right to life or due process.  They set their own right aside in threatening yours.)

So how does this work? Let’s take one example.  Many folk claim they have the “right” to the product of other people’s labor. (Don’t think so? What is health care but the product of the labor of researchers, doctors, educators, and a great many others?) Yet, 1) no such right is listed in the Constitution (important–if it _were_ listed, then it would, ipso facto, be a right), but we have to go beyond that because of the Ninth. Now, note what a right to the product of someone else’s labor _means_. One thing it means is that you deprive that someone else of the product of that labor. i.e. you deprive somebody of liberty or property. _But_ not being deprived of liberty or property without due process of law _is_ a right–explicitly stated in the Fifth. Therefore, there cannot be an “unenumerated right”, under the Ninth, to the product of other people’s labor because that would violate the rights those other people do have and that are explicitly listed.

So, what can we conclude?  Well, one of the “unalienable rights” of the Declaration of Independence is Liberty.  This is reiterated in the Fifth Amendment as something of which we are not to be deprived without due process of law.  So Liberty, then is simply the right to do as you see fit, provided it does not forcibly infringe on the same right in someone else.

That’s the touchstone.  If a claimed “right” violates someone else’s liberty, or their property, or definitely their life, then it’s not a right.   Only their actions can lead to the loss of those rights.  If someone causes you damage and the courts strip them of property to reimburse you for the loss, it’s their action that causes the loss of their property, not yours.  If someone causes you harm and the courts fine or imprison them as punishment for the harm, it’s their action that causes the loss of their liberty or property again, not yours.  And if someone in the commission of a heinous crime is killed in self-defense, or the courts decide their life is forfeit because of the particularly egregious nature of the offense, once again it is their actions that cause the loss of their right to life. (No, I am not opposed to capital punishment in principle.  However, because of the very permanent nature of it I think the standard of proof needs to be overwhelming, quite a bit more than even “beyond a reasonable doubt” before it is imposed.)