Uncategorized

We’ll be back to regular postings tomorrow. Tuesday Tunes, then “Envy” and “Show Me Your Papers.”

In the best of all worlds, every server would have two interfaces (NIC) with two ports cross-connected to two switches.

Each switch would be cross-connected to their upstream switch and so forth until you reach your redundant gateways.

The problem with this setup is that you can end up with loops that will take that part of the network down.

This means that switches need to be smart enough to keep that from happening. And you have to configure your network to allow for all those cross connections.

This means that a room will have three subnets. Primary 1, Primary 2, and Management. The switch needs to have routing capability. Then you use a routing protocol like OSPF to make magic happen.

OSPF sends out routing information often. Timers are measured in seconds, not minutes. This allows every router/switch to pick the best path at that instant.

Last week I determined that there was a problem with uplink speeds to the network. I was getting maybe a hundredth of what I should have been observing. This became obvious when I was attempting some bandwidth tests of client configurations.

So we start the process of elimination. The first thing to eliminate is the provider network. They could not provide a remote speed test because I was using my router; therefore, it required a technician to be dispatched.

The goal was to eliminate any questions regarding their side of the “demarc,” or demarcation.

The demarc is the separation of responsibility between the provider and the customer. Everything on their side of the demarc is their responsibility; everything on my side is my responsibility.

In my installation the demarc is the Optical Network Terminator (ONT). The ONT is a fiber modem; it’s not really, but it works for our purposes.

The provider prefers to provide the ONT, the router/access point/switch/VoIP gizmo. If they provide that gizmo, they move the demarc to that gizmo.

My issue is that the gizmo in question is always home quality, never better. My router is just a router. It has two 2.5 Gbit Ethernet ports and two 10 Gbit SFP ports. It has a 60 Gbit internal bus and provides DHCP, DNS, Proxy, port forwarding, and many other professional features. My access points are on a controller that monitors the power usage and adjusts the power of each access point to produce the best coverage. This allows me to have multiple Wireless Access Points (WAP) within the house and grounds that don’t interfere with each other.

Better yet, as you move from place to place, your device will seamlessly transfer to different WAPs as needed, without getting new IP addresses.

Regardless, my equipment is much better than what they provide.

We tested from the ONT and got good upload and download speeds. A step in the correct direction.

The next test was from the router. This gave me acceptable speeds, much better than 0.260 Gbit.

This left SFP modules, SFP sockets, and fiber. Being lazy, I start with SFP modules. Switching modules doesn’t help. Next I swapped the cables. Finally, I swapped the router ports.

Nothing fixed it. I currently believe that the SFP port/slot on the router has an issue.

Since I had a second switch, I could have used that; instead, I decided on a network upgrade.

The new switch was configured. It was attached to the second SFP port on the router. All the management networks and the DMZ network were attached to it. Removed from primary (router1). Then router2 was cross connected with router1 via a Direct Attach Connector (DAC). A DAC is a wire with module connectors on both ends. They are cheaper than fiber plus two modules and will run at very high speeds. They are the connector of choice for SFP to SFP within a meter or so with no sharp bends.

It took way too much time to get everything configured correctly. Mostly because I just didn’t have all the pieces correctly configured.

My network map was wrong. I had 192.168.99.x/24 allocated to P2P connections. It isn’t allocated to P2P. It is allocated to a remote subnet that is part of the local network via a VPN. Oops!

One that was taken care of, I had working connections between the gateway and both routers. But the routers would not talk to each other.

Turns out that I had the DAC plugged into the wrong slot. Once I had it in the correct slot with the correct media type, everything just started working.

I now have a cleaner network, with more options, and better bandwidth than ever before. It is working as I anticipated. It just took way too long to accomplish.

For those of you who live in the area, Chris and I will be up at the fort today, and I will be there tomorrow as well. He will be doing woodworking, and I am doing a project on fry bread today. Tomorrow I am teaching bread baking to a class of six. I hope to see you there!

Supreme Court Lessons

There are people who spend a lifetime learning how to predict what the Supreme Court is going to do. The short answer?

They get it wrong almost as often as us amateurs.

There are many moving parts involved with court cases. What is allowed and what is not allowed.

In general, the Court prefers to take cases that are important to the country or which the federal government wants them to take.

There are things that reduce the chances of a case being granted certiorari, the biggest being a case that is still in an interlocutory state. Interlocutory means that the fact finding part of the case has not completed. A final judgment has not been reached and all other means of redress have not been exhausted.

Four justices must vote to grant certiorari. Just because one side or the other has a majority, that might not be enough to get a case seen by the Court.

The question then becomes, what makes a case important to the country, in the eyes of the Court?

One of the big ones is a circuit split. The country is broken into circuits. Each court of appeals handles one circuit.

The famous circuit courts are the Ninth, Seventh, Fifth, and Second. If you want a good court for business law, the Second Circuit is the place to go. They deal with it constantly, being based out of New York City.

The Fifth circuit covers Texas and can be trusted to do the right thing most of the time. The Seventh Circuit is out of Chicago, and there isn’t an infringement they haven’t found constitutional. The Ninth en banc is currently around 250 to 0 for the state and against The People in Second Amendment cases.

To have a circuit split, different circuits must come to different conclusions given the same fact pattern. In this, the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 7th, and 9th Circuits have all been presented the same fact pattern regarding magazine bans and assault weapon bans. They have all agreed that such laws are constitutional.

The Fifth has not issued an opinion on that fact pattern because they don’t have any magazine ban or assault weapon ban challenges.

This means no circuit split.

The next thing the Court seems to be looking at is correcting past errors. We can look at the history of Roe v. Wade and Chevron and a host of other cases where the Supreme Court started walking back their original opinion shortly after it came out.

This happens when the inferior courts decide to apply the new case law in ways the Court did not intend. The Court will then take cases that touch on the original issue to “refine” their opinion. In general, the inferior courts seem to ignore this.

In the end, the Court will issue a new opinion declaring their old opinion revoked, and they will explain why. The Dobbs opinion, overturning Roe v. Way is an example of this. The Court had been limiting the extent of Roe v. Wade for a few decades before Dobbs.

Chief Justice Roberts prefers this incremental approach over more substantive changes.

This takes us to the “important for the country” cases.

Heller was a good example of this. After 8 decades, the Court heard a Second Amendment case. The purpose of the case was to reset the inferior courts.

The holding in Heller was that the Second Amendment was an individual right. In the process, the Court set up the rules on how Second Amendment cases should be adjudicated in the future. They defined almost every word of the Second Amendment, established the “plain text and historical tradition of firearm regulations”, and established the dangerous and unusual test for banning arms.

This last is sometimes stated as “in common use.”

If an arm is in common use for lawful purposes, then it is not unusual. Since an arm can only be banned if it is both “extra” dangerous AND and unusual, this means that an arm in common use cannot be banned.

When we look at Snope it was a slam dunk. Why? Because it was a repeat of Heller. There is nothing new in it.

The Supreme Court knows that repeating a past opinion will not change the inferior courts in a positive way.

To put it differently, if a case is granted certiorari, and then the lower court’s opinion is vacated, and the cases is remanded back to the inferior court to redo in light of some other published opinion and the inferior court reaches the same opinion, doing a full opinion isn’t going to make a difference.

When we were breaking up with a partner family, the other family came to the negotiation table with an offer of $16,000. They explained how they got that number.

I used their numbers to show that $16k wasn’t the correct answer.

The next meeting, they again offered $16k. The justification reason and numbers were different, the result was the same.

Again, I used their numbers to show that $16k wasn’t the correct answer.

The next meeting the offered the same $16k with still another justification and set of numbers.

“Your sister only gave you $16k to buy us out, right?”

“Uhhhhh, yes”

The rogue inferior courts keep coming up with the same answer with the same fact pattern with different justifications, every time. See the Fourth Circuit court’s handling of Bianchi v Brown, now known as Snope.

There are several Second Amendment cases that are currently seeking cert or that will file a petition for a writ of certiorari soon. One of those is Duncan v. Bonta.

This is a magazine ban case. Unlike Ocean State Tactical, this case is not in an interlocutory state. It should be ripe for taking.

I do not believe the Supreme Court will take it. It is not the slam dunk of an arms ban. It has too much extra baggage with it, regarding “is it an arm or is it an accessory.” The Court is more likely to take an arms ban because that is a slam dunk, and they can explain that accessories, such as magazines, are arms under the Second Amendment.

This leaves us some cases regarding the NFA, sensitive places, licensing requirements, and Second Amendment rights following you across state lines.

All of these cases will advance Second Amendment jurisprudence.

It Will Cost

My truck is 15 years old. It has a new frame and the motor appears to be strong.

Unfortunately, after 15 years, it is showing some of its age.

Yesterday I got the bad news: New pads and rotors in the front. New calibers on both sides for the front, new wheel bearings for both sides of the front. Replace brake hose crimp in rear right. Two broken brackets that need to be replaced, and a half dozen other things.

R and R for the wheel bearings is over $700 each.

The local parts store has everything in stock for me to do the break and bearing work. At over $1000 in parts.

Rockauto had all the parts available for $450 with $69 in shipping.

On the 21st I’ll be working on the truck to do all the work I can in the front. The only issue I really see is I might have to replace a short section of hard line.

Who wants to bet it will be raining that day?

Website Design and Coding

Tuesday I arrived at the next step in my museum website project. After three days of frustration, attempting to decide what I wanted to do, I took a step back, went and implemented the shopping cart.

Things just got simple in the backend. Simple in the front end. Just a small bit of coding before I find my next roadblock.

Question of the Week

What preparations are you taking for the “No Kings”, nationwide, mostly peaceful protests? It is taking place tomorrow, June 14th.

The court has issued 40 opinions as of June 7th. We are expecting more before the end of the term later this month.

Two of those cases were Second Amendment cases, around 5%. We had 2 major opinions, for The People, in the 2023 term.

The first major win for The People came in Loper Bright. This started life as a case regarding offshore fishing regulations and inspections. The Commerce Department issued new rules regarding inspections of offshore fishing. The rules required the fishing vessel to provide food and bunk space, as well as to pay the cost of the inspector onboard the vessel.

In short, the boat had to pay to have an inspector living onboard looking over their shoulders, even if they weren’t catching any fish that required the inspector.

They sued for relief.

The lower courts applied the Chevron doctrine, which had been interpreted to mean, “What the Federal Agency says is what we have to agree with.” Chevron has stopped many civil suits through the decades. Loper Bright puts an end to that.

Takeaway ONE

The court’s job is to decide what the law is, not some regulatory agency. Courts must do their job and not just accept what the government says.

This takeaway is used in later opinions of the Court.

NRA v Vullo is our second interesting case, this is one of the lawfare, red tape war waged against gun owners’ rights. The short of it was that the state of NY was pressuring regulated business to stop doing business with the NRA.

Takeaway TWO

The government cannot compel a third party to do what the government is forbidden to do.

Garland v. Cargill was one of the cases that led to the striking of Chevron. In Cargill, the Court found that the ATF exceeded their statutory authorizations.

Takeaway THREE

The executive branch does not get to create legislation, even when Congress appears to have granted that transfer of power.

United States v. Rahimi was a case with bad facts which did get us a reasonable result.

Rahimi had a TRO against him. He was aware of the TRO. He was in the courtroom when the judge issued the TRO and he had agreed to the conditions of the TRO. Those included “no firearms”.

Rahimi was and is a violent person. He was charged with multiple crimes and was captured with TRO paperwork and a firearm.

Takeaway FOUR

There is no regulation in this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation that permanently removed the right to keep and bear arms.

Takeaway FIVE

A violent person can be temporarily denied his Second Amendment protected right.

Bondi v. VanDerStok

HELD: The ATF’s rule is not facially inconsistent with the GCA.

This case is a legal match to Rahimi The question we wanted to be answered in Rahimi, and which was answered, is 18 U.S.C. §921(g)(8) facially unconstitutional.

To be facially unconstitutional, there can be no situation where the law is constitutional. This means that the law is unconstitutional when applied to 1 million people, but because it is constitutional when applied to the 1,000,001st person, then it survives the challenge.

In Rahimi, was there any time a person could have their Second Amendment protected rights removed? The answer turns out to be “Yes.” They can be taken away temporarily if the person has been adjudicated violent.

In VanDerStok it was again a facial challenge. The Court found that there was at least one kit being sold which met the definition of a firearm.

Takeaway SIX

There are infringements which will survive judicial review in light of Bruen and Heller

Takeaway SEVEN

The Court attempts to be consistent with their previous opinions. This leads to outcomes we dislike.

Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., et al. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos

Takeaway EIGHT

The Remington settlement caused negative ripples. It emboldened the infringers to ramp up their lawfare actions.

Takeaway NINE

The agenda-driven Justices agreed that Mexico did not meet the requirements to pierce the PLCAA protections.

Takeaway TEN

AR-15s are in common use for lawful purposes.

Takeaway ELEVEN

While it does not require a probable event to pierce PLCAA protections, it does require a true allegation of a crime and plausible connection of the defendant to that probable event.

Takeaway TWELVE

PLCAA is a powerful protection against frivolous lawsuits.

Takeaway Thirteen

This was a major course correction after the failures in the Remington case.

That New Car Feeling

Well, a portion of the inheritance from my parents arrived. I gave myself a small amount and the wife. Money that wasn’t spoken for in other ways.

The last few times I’ve needed a rental car, I’ve gotten a current version of my Toyota Tacoma. Every time I came away wishing I had a new truck.

Then a few days after getting back in my truck, I would realize that I didn’t want a new Truck. What I wanted was the new radio/head end.

So that’s what I got. A serious upgrade, It is an Alpine unit with Android Auto. I will be able to get in the truck and when I turn on the unit, it will hook up and give me navigation, calls, and music. Life is nice.

And for much less than a month’s payments on a new truck.

Boy they last a long time

In 1967, my parents bought a VW Microbus. It had hauling capacity that a standard station wagon did not. It was the equivalent of today’s mom van.

At the time, most cars were getting an astonishing 5 to 7 MPG. The VW got 20MPG. Given the amount of travel we did, this likely made a difference.

They gave me that car when I turned 16. I drove it until 1987 when I traded it in.

At the time I traded it in, it was on its third engine, its second gas tank, it didn’t have a working speedometer. The floor was nearly rusted through. Hell, it was rusted through. The aux. heater hadn’t worked in years. The main heater wouldn’t even defrost the windshields.

The bumper was a replacement that my brother wielded up out of diamond tread.

In short, it was at the end of its life. A year after I traded it in, I saw somebody driving it around town.

My truck is 15 years old. At 15 it is in better condition than that VW was at 10. It is still on its first engine. There is no rust on it. I expect it to keep going for at least another 5 years.

Lawfare

We keep moving closer and closer to the administration telling the courts to pound sand until the Supreme Court Rules.

It is sickening how inferior courts can find their way to always rule against trump.

A stat I heard was that between 1900 and 1999, there were 22 nationwide injunctions issued. There were 87 issued against Trump in his first term.

I believe I heard that there have been 30 so far in his second term.

People Fall For This?

I had numerous ads pop up because I purchased some computer stuff direct from China. Would you believe that you can buy a 2023 GMC Sierra for only $1,500? Sounds too good to be true.

Looking at the listing, they only accept payment via Western Union or wire transfers. Yeah, too good to be true.

And This

A friend ordered a DVD he had been searching for over the last 5 years. It arrived. New In Box.

Except it was just the box and book. No DVD. Amazon seller who was long gone by the time my friend received his package.

Amazon is covering the costs, but still…

Tariffs

I spent the last two weeks adding tariff processing to a B2B e-commerce website. The Canadian was just frustrated at the extra work for him and having to finally track tariffs. He had just been eating the cost of tariffs for years, a part of doing business.

In the meantime, I’ve been told that Trump’s tariffs are going to cost me thousands of dollars per year.

I’ve watched videos of leaders in other countries say, “We aren’t going to take this from the USA!”

One article pointed out that Vietnam has tariffs on the $10B they import from the US. Trump has put tariffs on the $150B we import from Vietnam. Isn’t it stupid that he did this to them?

Question of the Week

If the United States putting tariffs on imports is so bad, why is it good when other countries put tariffs on our goods.

What do you think of this entire tariff thing?

Whenever I see a motion for a TRO, Preliminary Injunction or a Stay, the opinion of the court always includes a reference to —Winter V. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 172 L. Ed. 2d 249 (2008).

These are known as the “Winter Factors”. They must be addressed in order by the court before granting any of the above.

The first factor is the likelihood of success on the merits. Is the person requesting the TRO, PI or Stay going to win the case in the end? If it is more likely than not, then the first factor has been met.

The second factor is the question of the amount and type of harm being done. The key phrase is irreparable harm. In short, this means that the harm cannot be redressed by throwing money at it. All violations of Constitutionally protected rights are considered irreparable harm. You will never again have that opportunity at that moment of time with those people listening back again.

The third factor is the balance of equities. Who will be most harmed whether the motion is granted or not granted. If the motion being granted will force a business to close, while not granting it will impose an eyesore, the balance of equities’ favorers not granting the motion.

The final factor is what is in the best interest of the public. The public has no interest in enforcing unconstitutional laws. This always favors The People. The state will often argue that “keeping the public safe” is the correct scale to use for determining what is in the publics best interests.

The court did not use the Winter Factors.

And this is why she is using the Nken instead of Winter To be able to discount the likelihood of success because of the amount of harm. In other words, instead of having to prove they are likely to win on the merits, the plaintiffs have chosen to prove that they might be horribly harmed if some hypothetical comes true.

Yeah, that doesn’t make much sense to me.

IANAL. My opinion is that the first question to be resolved is if the APA law(s) passed by congress limiting the power of the President are constitutional. If they are not constitutional, then they must be vacated and there is no cause for the case.

Instead, the court assumes the APA overrides the authority granted to the President under the Constitution. She then turns the Winter standard on its head.

Even though the text reads To establish a likelihood of success on the merits, a plaintiff need not show that success is an absolute certainty. It need only make a showing that the probability of … prevailing is better than fifty percent.

The plaintiff bears the burden. Not the defendant. This judge says it is the States that bear the burden.

The gist of this is that the courts are planning to ignore the Constitutional issues as much as possible and instead base their opinions on laws that are unconstitutional.

When people run into the evil that is the left, they find that the center has left them right of center. Welcome

Call for submissions!

The Turning Leaf Tavern is a way-station for people traveling throughout the fantasy realms. Here, you can find Hobbits and Elves, Humans, Dwarves, Half-feet, and representatives of a hundred different races and fictional worlds. They find themselves at the tavern’s door when need calls, and within its walls they find succor and good cheer. The tavern itself is in its own universe, designed by M. Allyson Szabo, and has its own stories to tell.

Tales from the Turning Leaf Tavern will not be just about the tavern, though. The stories within its pages will come from you, the writers of the world. The anthology will be comprised of somewhere between 15 and 25 stories, each with a recipe or four at the end, so that readers may share in the glory of the story’s victuals. That said, Allyson has decided to provide some preliminary tales about the tavern and its denizens for writers to riff off of. You, the authors, have permission to use the Turning Leaf Tavern and its people in your writing, though M. Allyson Szabo retains the copyright to the tavern itself and the characters she created to go with it. Your stories, even the ones with Turning Leaf and the folk within, belong to you, the original authors.

This anthology will be comprised of fantasy stories that are original and unique, paired with recipes that go along with the tales that are told. If you have a story that is set in a fantasy world, is between 2500 and 6000 words, and that involves a tavern and its food in some way, then we would love to read it!

Submissions opened on January 1st, 2025, and will close on March 31, 2025. The exact number of stories has not been set, and will depend upon the submissions made to the anthology. Please note that submission does not equal acceptance. We will contact everyone who has submitted a story and recipe by April 30, 2025 to inform them of the status of their submission.

For full information about the proposed anthology and the world of the Turning Leaf Tavern, you can read here: https://mallysonszabo.weebly.com/turning-leaf-tavern.html

May his time in Hell be tempered by the good he did after he was no longer in office.

In my opinion, this man started the decline of respect for the United States. His policies were so bad that we still have not recovered from them.

The Middle East is a cesspool of tribes. All of which hate each other, except maybe the Jewish people.

Middle Eastern tribes respect only one thing, power. If you have power, you are respected. If you do not have power, you are less than the dirt beneath their sandals.

The Peanut farmer let the US embassy in Iran be taken multiple times by “students”.

He was so afraid of “offending” the Iranians, that he ordered the Guards at the US Embassy to be disarmed. AFTER they were over run.

When the “students” took over and took hostages, he sat with his thumb up his arse playing footsy with Mrs. Peanut Farmer for 100s of days.

I know, personally, that there were troops in the air within hours of the hostages being taken. I know, personally, that there was a plan to retake the embassy within a few hours of it being taken.

That weakness led to the fall of Iran. Which turned it into the terrorist state of Iran.

The World Trade Center bombings? Jimmy’s fault.

The bombing of the U.S.S. Cole? Jimmy’s fault.

9/11? Jimmy’s fault.

The slight tinge of regret I have is for his Wife. I don’t think she is in Hell with him.

Last week I cooked up a turkey breast that had been lurking in the freezer for a while. It was a lovely treat, and we really enjoyed it. However, with just a few of us here at the house these days, even cooking up just a breast is a bit much. I decided I would make turkey pot pies out of the leftovers, some of which we’d eat right away, and some that could go in the freezer. The grocery store was sadly lacking in pie crusts, and I’m just not great at making them. So I decided to try Turkey a la King, because it was sort of an inside out turkey pie. The end result was incredibly delicious, and we really enjoyed it! I hope you do, too.

Ingredients

• 4 tbsp butter or margarine
• 1/2 medium yellow onion, finely chopped
• 1 medium carrot, peeled, finely chopped
• 1 stalk celery, finely chopped
• 5 tbsp all-purpose flour
• 2 cups low-sodium chicken broth
• 1-1/2 cups milk (oatmilk also works)
• salt and pepper to taste
• 1-1/2 lbs cooked turkey breast, cut into 1″ chunks
• 1 cup frozen peas or mixed vegetables
• 1/2 cup mashed potatoes
• 1/4 cup chopped fresh parsley
• Warm biscuits or puff pastry shells for serving

In a large skillet or cast iron pot, melt the butter over medium high heat. When the butter is bubbling slightly and is completely melted, add in the carrot, onion, and celery. Cook for about ten minutes, until the vegetables are softened.

Add in the flour, and quickly stir to coat all the vegetables as evenly as you can. Immediately whisk in the broth, milk, and salt and pepper. Add the liquid slowly while whisking rapidly throughout, to achieve a silky smooth finish. This part should take about five minutes to complete. Add in the turkey, potato, and peas, and stir occasionally until the dish is warmed through, about ten more minutes.

In a large skillet over medium-high heat, melt butter. Add mushrooms, onion, carrot, and celery and cook, stirring often, until softened, 8 to 10 minutes.

Serve the turkey mixture over top of the biscuits or puff pastry shells, and sprinkle with a bit of fresh minced parsley for color and flavor.

Notes:
So traditionally, this would be made with 8 oz or so of sliced mushrooms. I didn’t have any on hand, so this is my version of the more traditional recipe. I used an old fashioned biscuit recipe for this, but you could do any biscuits, including the “quick” ones on a box of Bisquick.

If you find that your finished product isn’t thick enough, you can fix it in one of three ways. First, you can use the traditional route, which is to make a roux in another pan and then add the roux to the boiling turkey mixture. Stir well, and it should thicken. Second, you can make a slurry (a tablespoon of flour or cornstarch with just enough cold water to make a thin paste) and add that to the boiling turkey mixture. Stir, and it should thicken up. The third, and inarguably the easiest method, is to add a teaspoon or so of potato flakes to the mixture. Simply sprinkle potato flakes on top of the boiling turkey  mixture, and then stir. Continue to add more potato flakes a little at a time until the desired thickness is achieved.