Category Archives: View

View 630 Wednesday, June 27, 2012

I hear a ton of speculations about why the court found parts of the Arizona illegal aliens laws unconstitutional while keeping the “Your papers, please,” provision that was really the heart of the Arizona system. Arizona cannot, according to the USSC, make it a state crime for an illegal alien to hold a job; but it can aid the feds if it discovers illegals in the ordinary course of the law enforcement business. It’s all arcane legalese and there’s not much common sense in it, but that’s what happens when you turn self government over to experts. If you don’t like this, take back your government.

And the speculations on why Roberts joined in getting rid of parts of the Arizona law continue, although it seems obvious to me. If you believe in states’ rights you also believe in federal rights, and that means you need some way to sort out who gets what cases. If you don’t the evil of double jeopardy looms higher and higher. But that’s for another essay.

Some of the wild speculation is a form of Kremlinology practiced on the Court itself, and that’s usually a rather feckless thing to do. We’ll just have to wait to see if there was some horse trading on the Obamacare decision. It shouldn’t be long.

My old editor Paul Schindler is coming over for a hike and due in a few minutes so I’ll post this and the account I wrote about scanpst for now. More on other stuff later.

Windows 7 search sucks.

One reason I continue to use Windows 7 rather than convert everything to a Mac is that I do like Microsoft Office, in large part because after this many years, books, columns mail, blogs, taxes, and the rest I’m pretty well used to it, and I’ve got past going off exploring new computer stuff just for the fun of it.

One program I use is Outlook, which over the years has evolved into something that works pretty well, particularly in my case. I get about 1,600 spam messages a day. My ISP catches about half of them. Outlook junk mail filters catch another 200. I have crafted a set of rules that get a lot more. My problem is that I need to see press releases – some of them – and spammers have become clever about sanding larger and larger clocks of plain text from Shakespeare or other legitimate sources to swamp the spam filters, and they still get through, — which wouldn’t be so bad if they didn’t send a dozen or so of the same message. Every day. Anyway, for good or ill, I am stuck with Outlook, and Outlook uses pst files which grow ever larger and larger.

Eventually a pst file will be interrupted in some way and become corrupt, and the next time you run Outlook you will be told to run scanpst.exe. Since scanpst.exe is always installed with office that ought to be easy, and it would be if I left Office in the place where Microsoft puts it, but for good reasons I keep Outlook in a root directory called C:\Outlook. Recently I got the “run scanpst.exe” message – and I couldn’t find scanpst anywhere. I mentioned this in the blog, and thanks to readers I can now find it, but it makes for an interesting story.

I found C:\Programfiles(x86)\Microsoftoffice\office12\scanpst.exe, thanks to readers. It’s there, but Windows 7 search doesn’t find it. Even an extended search. Interestingly, when I did Search on this machine, it found plenty of documents that referenced scanpst.exe, but no such program: however, when I did an extended search to “Computer” which includes searches of mapped drives on networked machines, search found scanpst.exe all right – on another machine, Emily. Meanwhile search on Emily fails to find scanpst.exe.

Windows 7 has a very fast search system in the sense that if it’s going to find something it finds it pretty fast. It does that by building indices in background. But the search isn’t thorough, it’s hard to use if it doesn’t find something instantly, and in general it sucks compared to the Search program Windows had from at least windows 95 through Windows XP. One wonders if Microsoft programmers use their own operating system, or if they have some secret egrep function they can run? Because this Windows 7 search system sucks dead bunnies.

I also experimented with opening a command window and trying to run scanpst. It cannot find the file. Try cd\ to get to the root. Run scanpst. Can’t find it. Work my way down the directories, cd Program Files (x86) and run scanpst. Can’t find it. Eventually I get to C:\Programfiles(x86)\Microsoftoffice\office12 and try to run scanpst, and LO! it works. Clearly I need to play with the registry to add that to the path to be searched for commands, and clearly I don’t care enough to do that. I’ll live with this, but Microsoft really should pay some attention to the current search function. The simplest think it could do is add the old Search we all got used to. The new system is fine but sometimes we really need to find something that the current search doesn’t believe in.

Regarding that Office12, that’s Office 2007. If you have Office 2010 that will be in the Office14 directory. Windows 7 is really easy to use except that it isn’t, sometimes. Just like the Mac OS, but with Mac you can, as a last resort, get to a command window with real like UNIX and egrep. And I wonder if the Microsoft programmers don’t have some secret method of doing that since they clearly don’t use the standard Windows 7 search. And so far none of this is fixed in any version of Windows 8 I have seen, but it’s very early days on that.

Windows 7 search

It is a little irritating when the search indices don’t yield desired results. Command prompt and a very old DOS command still works well. Result close to instantaneous when run on my heavily abused laptop.

C:\>dir /s scanpst.exe

Volume in drive C has no label.

Volume Serial Number is AEE1-B8B9

Directory of C:\Program Files\Microsoft Office\Office15

04/08/2012 03:16 PM 40,088 SCANPST.EXE

1 File(s) 40,088 bytes

Regards,

Lee

Lee Coward

Which works just fine, and I had forgotten although I knew this at one time. Thanks!

View 630 Tuesday, June 26, 2012

The Supreme Court has upheld a fundamental right of Arizona to enforce Federal law on immigration, while holding that the making of that policy is the province of Congress. Arizona can’t make it a crime to hold a job if you are an illegal alien. It can ask your immigration status if you come to the attention of police by some other means. This is hard to quarrel with.

The Administration, in a fit of pique, is trying to criminalize Arizona’s enforcement of the law, and has set up hot lines for denouncing law enforcement officers. I wonder how long it will take the Tea Party to start looking for Federal officers to denounce. This weapon has more than one edge.

Meanwhile, Arizona no longer has any effective control of its borders according to the President. The Emperor spoke in haste, and will probably repent at some point. We can look for more interesting developments in Arizona and along its borders. We can also wonder what effect this will have on the legal immigrants who went through the rather onerous requirements to come here. Some of them have citizenship, won by hard work and dedication. Will they be inclined to vote for those who say that all that hard work and dedication was a waste of time? Not all immigrants can vote. although the President doesn’t seem entirely aware of that.

And the Decision on ObamaCare is coming soon.

The Things Decided at Vicksburg

You said…

"And the Supreme Court has spoken with an odd voice, claiming that the Constitution puts limits on the States that had Virginia understood would be a consequence of the Union, neither Virginia nor the Carolinas would have joined the Union. There would be no United States had the original signers understood that they were giving up some of the most basic fundamentals of sovereignty."

I submit that Ole "Honest Abe" and some 600,000 American casualties ended real state sovereignty some 150 years ago…except of course when part of Virginia seceded from its parent. The primary role of states now appears to be the implementation of unfunded federal mandates.

Had they realized in time joining the United States was a "one state, one vote, one time" choice several states would have chosen differently.

Charles Brumbelow

This raises a point that requires comment. Whether or not it was the intention of the writer, it says that the key question of the nature of the Union is over, having been settled by force of arms, and those who do not approve of the current distribution of power between Washington and the States should – what? Stop talking about it. Accept it. Or, if they are unhappy, plot bloody revolution? Neither seems an effective course of action. Nor does organizing a new secession movement seem very attractive.

Moreover, it assumes the very disputable notion that the issue was settled once and for all by Appomattox, and from then on we have had a uniform movement toward nationalism and away from transparency and subsidiarity; that we are doomed to stay on that road.

It isn’t true, of course. The impeachment of Andrew Johnson failed of conviction: even the Reconstruction Senate recoiled from that. And then came the Hayes Tilden election , in which Reconstruction was ended on condition that the Republican candidate became President, while Bedford Forrest disbanded the Klan. And even during the depths of the Great Depression followed by World War II many Federal schemes failed. There remains a legal tradition in the United States for strict construction of the Constitution. That tradition isn’t so apparent among Harvard Law graduates, but it exists.

But leave all that: the key question is , why concede that the question is settled? A lot of people don’t think so; and the recent history of the United States provides considerable evidence that even on the theory of a “living Constitution” to be interpreted along pragmatic lines, centralization doesn’t work very well. The very phrase “transparency and subsidiarity” as the guiding principle of government is not mine, but that of Jane Jacobs, hardly a conservative firebrand. On purely liberal pragmatic grounds, the evidence shows that centralization is not always the answer to social problems, and often is the cause of some of the worst of them. Yes, some decisions need to be national – but not all of them, and that is becoming pragmatically clear. It is, for instance, abundantly clear that Roe v. Wade was a drastic error on pragmatic grounds, and the proper way to deal with abortion rights was to leave it to the states. That has also the great merit of being the obvious constitutional course: abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution and it was illegal in every state that adopted the Constitution at the time that state entered the Union. There has been no Amendment to change that. What gives the federal government power over the question? And on pragmatic grounds this has been terribly divisive.

Appomattox settled some things. The Civil War Amendments were adopted and became part of the Constitution. Slavery was abolished, and good riddance. The Bill of Rights was, sort of, almost, incorporated into a national Bill of Rights to be applied to the States as well as to the Federal government, which was stable for generations until the Warren Court went mad in discovering fresh new rights in emanations and penumbras. The Warren Court decisions were mostly wrong. Some are irrevocable but not all. And the makeup of the Court is controlled by the President and 60 Senators. Ted Kennedy was able to Bork Judge Bork, and the Democrats have made the court appointments almost purely political, but that blood sport is not part of constitutional law. None of this is universally approved, and none of that is irreversible.

I do not concede that the key question — can a nation be a world power and remain a constitutional republic rather than become an empire – was settled by Reconstruction. I do not believe that it is wrong to remind the courts of that. And I do believe that it is vital that the friends of liberty not give up.

I am closing some Firefox tabs that I’ve kept open as reminders but which I probably won’t get to. This is a mixed bag, and not all of it will be of interest to all readers here, but some may be worth your time.

There is a long bit on McNamara and the Strategy of Technology http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/05/where-did-future-go-strategy-of.html which will be worth the attention of those interested in those subjects.

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/UFO.html is my view on flying saucers and UFO’s.

On D D Harriman and the space program: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/951/1

And a review of A Step Farther Out http://www.fourmilab.ch/fourmilog/archives/2012-06/001380.html

View 730 Monday, June 25, 2012

We’re back from the beach a bit early. It has taken me a couple of hours to straighten out Outlook. My practice has been to copy the pst files onto my laptop, run outlook while I am on the road, and when I come back copy the pst files back to my main machine. I make intermediate backup copies. This time the outlook.pst file has gotten swollen, and had a bunch of stuff in that, and needed doing an archive job on it as well as compacting.

I also discovered that I no longer have the scanpst.exe file that is supposed to come with every copy of Outlook, and indeed it doesn’t seem to be anywhere on my system. I could be wrong, but I sure can’t find it. I can recall outlook telling me it didn’t want to open and had to scan the pst file; this time it didn’t want to open, and told me to run scanpst.exe, only I couldn’t find it. I managed to get past this, but in doing it I may have lost about a couple of hour’s mail sent this afternoon: if you sent me anything important on Monday from about 10 AM to 3 PM, send it again, please. And if you know what happened to the Microsoft tools that are supposed to work on this, please tell me that.

I did discover that you can Google scanpst.exe and find all kinds of “free downloads” that turn out to run just fine – except that to save the work they did they want a hundred dollars or more. They are not from Microsoft. And the sites that used to feature scanpst.exe no longer function. There are other substitutes for the Microsoft programs. None tell you up front what they cost. And mucking about with pst files is a hacker’s dream anyway – if they’ll fool you with what it’s going to cost, whatever else will they do? As usual I pulled the Ethernet plug on the computer before trying to run the ‘free’ downloaded scan program, and did a hefty scan of the computer after deleting the pesky program after I found out it wanted lots of money. At some point I need to look into this situation. I haven’t looked very hard for stories on this, but I think there is one here somewhere. Outlook is an important program, PST files get themselves corrupted all to frequently, and the reconstruction tools used to be built into the kit that comes with Outlook. Now I begin to wonder. There was a time when I’d have been on top of this story, and I feel a bit of the old curiosity coming back.

Anyway I did manage to get Outlook running smoothly, completely delete all the trash I could find, run an archive utility, and then run the file compacting tool. Should have done all that long ago.

It’s late. A lot is happening in the world. Election in Egypt – with both President Obama and Secretary Clinton urging the Egyptian Mamelukes, who claim to be successors to Ataturk, preserving the secular nature of Egypt from the clerics – that is, they want Egypt to remain at peace with Israel, and not to impose Sharia law, and while they’re more corrupt than Ataturk’s immediate followers were, they have some of the same ideals — Obama and Clinton want them to step down and bow to the Muslim Brotherhood candidate who very likely did win the election.

Constitutional democracy is not the same thing as plebiscitary democracy, which you would expect even a junior professor of constitutional law to know. Or someone in the State Department for that matter.

Anyway, I have thoughts on this that need organizing.

And the Supreme Court has spoken with an odd voice, claiming that the Constitution puts limits on the States that had Virginia understood would be a consequence of the Union, neither Virginia nor the Carolinas would have joined the Union. There would be no United States had the original signers understood that they were giving up some of the most basic fundamentals of sovereignty.

And we are told that Thursday may be decision day for Obama care. Quite a week.

But it’s late and I need to get to bed.

I have an inquiry for advice on writing. I plan one day to revise this, but the essay How To Get My Job http://www.jerrypournelle.com/slowchange/myjob.html is still valid, and as good as I have right now.

View 689 Saturday, June 23, 2012

I am down at the beach and on dialup. All is well, and there is interesting mail, which I can keep up with.

I am working on the Executive Privilege matter. I am of course aware of Rush Limbaugh’s hypothesis, which is that Fast and Furious was a White House originated scheme to assault the Second Amendment by allowing a lot of American guns to get in the hands of the drug cartels, allowing the US to pledge to Mexico that we would stop this and thus give the President an International Emergency to work off of. I can even see how it might have come about from a casual remark – the solution to the Mexican cartels is to fence them in and throw guns and ammunition over the fence. That’ll fix ‘em. If you have enough enemies sometimes things work out better than you thought. Etc.

And a recent correspondent suggests that

It’s precisely the kind of thinking exhibited by Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, whom I believe either came up with the idea or inspired it amongst Obama’s Chicagoite underlings. And that’s what I think Obama is trying to hide.

That might explain why the President is so desperate: it’s a stupid scheme, it’s an act of contempt for Mexico, It’s an assault on the Mexican people who are the ones who paid most of the price in blood – those are factors, but the deciding factor is that Ayers and Dorn are not only still close friends of the President, but involved in policy – and stupid enough to let their names be in documents that cannot be destroyed. I am not sure I accept that, but it is one possible reason why the stakes are so high that the President will invest a lot of his rapidly falling political capital in taking ownership of Fast and Furious.

More another time. It’s late. Good night.