Quilt Show!

Is anyone interested in joining me at the Philadelphia Quilt Extravaganza? on September 19th? (The show runs from the 16th to the 19th, but I'm booked on the 18th, and I'm assuming that few people will be available on the weekdays.)

I've been there before, and there'll be a huge exhibit of ambitious but usable quilts (I feel that art quilts are unclear on the concept), merchants (more kinds of pretty cotton than you can imagine, odd stuff like working miniature sewing machines suitable for travellers, and books), a contest to see who can do the coolest project with an arbitrary quilting fabric, and classes.

Let me know if you're interested and when you'd be likely to show up, and if I could possibly get a ride with you from South Philly.

I tend to look for humorous books about quilting--there isn't much, and I would dearly love to see a book of funny quilts, but I recommend How Not to Make a Prize-Winning Quilt by Ami Simms--it's a description of what it's like to make quilts when you just want to *quilt* and not fuss with things like making sure that the seam allowance on your sewing machine is exactly the right size. The bathroom quilt with the shark's fin in the bathtub is a classic.

Quilt Show!

Is anyone interested in joining me at the Philadelphia Quilt Extravaganza? on September 19th? (The show runs from the 16th to the 19th, but I'm booked on the 18th, and I'm assuming that few people will be available on the weekdays.)

I've been there before, and there'll be a huge exhibit of ambitious but usable quilts (I feel that art quilts are unclear on the concept), merchants (more kinds of pretty cotton than you can imagine, odd stuff like working miniature sewing machines suitable for travellers, and books), a contest to see who can do the coolest project with an arbitrary quilting fabric, and classes.

Let me know if you're interested and when you'd be likely to show up, and if I could possibly get a ride with you from South Philly.

I tend to look for humorous books about quilting--there isn't much, and I would dearly love to see a book of funny quilts, but I recommend How Not to Make a Prize-Winning Quilt by Ami Simms--it's a description of what it's like to make quilts when you just want to *quilt* and not fuss with things like making sure that the seam allowance on your sewing machine is exactly the right size. The bathroom quilt with the shark's fin in the bathtub is a classic.

A fourth check and balance

Jim Henley has a neat explanation of why checks and balances don't prevent a considerable erosion of freedom. (Page down to "Anarhcy, State, and Blogtopia".)

Far easier and more profitable, from a power, status and bureaucratic perpetuation standpoint, for each branch to nibble at separate regions of the unregulated sphere. If the government was truly limited initially, it can take quite some time until the branches come into unavoidable conflict. And when they do, they have options beyond simply checking and balancing each other. They can arrive at modi vivendi that beat zealously opposing the other branches at the margin.

I suspect the vote is supposed to supply a lot of the check and balance to the rest of the government, but it doesn't work terribly well.

Here's a notion for improving the situation: you get extra votes if you're punished by the government. One vote for each six months in prison (including time spent awaiting trial). One vote for each year on probation. You retain these extra votes for the rest of your life.

One vote for each percent of your income taken as fines. These votes get used up, but if it takes a while to build up to an even percent, so be it.

Extra votes get applied to the jurisdiction that imposed the punishment.

I'm not sure what the appropriate answer is if the government kills you. I'm thinking 20 votes plus 5 for each estimated year lost, to be given to friends and family. There are obviously some logistical problems.

There are more problems associated with restrictions on liberty that don't lead to formal punishment, but perhaps it's best to have a bright line.

A this point, you're probably wondering why I'm suggesting that criminals get rewarded. The reason is that the government gets rewarded for punishing people--fines are an obvious conflict of interest, and prisons represent money that the government can hand out.

Under this system, the government can punish moderate numbers of murderers and thieves, but there's some reverse pressure if too much is made illegal or the punishments get too severe.

I'm not sure how serious I am about this solution, though I'm quite serious about the problem. If you've got other solutions, please let me know.

A fourth check and balance

Jim Henley has a neat explanation of why checks and balances don't prevent a considerable erosion of freedom. (Page down to "Anarhcy, State, and Blogtopia".)

Far easier and more profitable, from a power, status and bureaucratic perpetuation standpoint, for each branch to nibble at separate regions of the unregulated sphere. If the government was truly limited initially, it can take quite some time until the branches come into unavoidable conflict. And when they do, they have options beyond simply checking and balancing each other. They can arrive at modi vivendi that beat zealously opposing the other branches at the margin.

I suspect the vote is supposed to supply a lot of the check and balance to the rest of the government, but it doesn't work terribly well.

Here's a notion for improving the situation: you get extra votes if you're punished by the government. One vote for each six months in prison (including time spent awaiting trial). One vote for each year on probation. You retain these extra votes for the rest of your life.

One vote for each percent of your income taken as fines. These votes get used up, but if it takes a while to build up to an even percent, so be it.

Extra votes get applied to the jurisdiction that imposed the punishment.

I'm not sure what the appropriate answer is if the government kills you. I'm thinking 20 votes plus 5 for each estimated year lost, to be given to friends and family. There are obviously some logistical problems.

There are more problems associated with restrictions on liberty that don't lead to formal punishment, but perhaps it's best to have a bright line.

A this point, you're probably wondering why I'm suggesting that criminals get rewarded. The reason is that the government gets rewarded for punishing people--fines are an obvious conflict of interest, and prisons represent money that the government can hand out.

Under this system, the government can punish moderate numbers of murderers and thieves, but there's some reverse pressure if too much is made illegal or the punishments get too severe.

I'm not sure how serious I am about this solution, though I'm quite serious about the problem. If you've got other solutions, please let me know.