Skip to content

People just don’t understand technology

Monday, May 14, 2012

I really love how people broadcast their own vision of the future because it really shows how naïve some people can really be – “the technology I use is what the next generation will be primarily using” is pretty much the sentiment. And not failing in this regard is Avram Piltch’s article in Laptopmag.com called “15 current technologies my newborn son won’t use“. Is everyone living in a science fiction novel?

Wired Home Internet

Do a little research to find out what exactly it’ll take to allow for wireless broadband Internet to everyone. It’ll take a lot: access towers all across the globe. This also means a ton of power – providing wireless signals sucks up more power than wired signals. Wired home Internet will not be going away ever for this reason, nor will it be replaced by cellular Internet access. There will always be the wires.

Dedicated Cameras and Camcorders

Why does everyone seem to think that camera phones will replace cameras? It’s not going to happen. Here’s what I wrote to Facebook:

I’m sorry, but anyone who tries to say that camera phones even come close to being able to compete with digital cameras, let alone DSLRs, is living in a fantasy world. As one person in the comments to this article correctly said, camera phones take “snapshots”, digital cameras take photographs.

Now this isn’t to say you cannot get any good photos from a camera phone. If you pay attention to all of the details of your shot, you certainly can. But until they start introducing an *optical* zoom on camera phones, digital cameras will remain in the market. Oh and if you try to tell me that digital zooms are “just as good” as optical zooms, you need to wake up.

I also addressed this notion last year (here) and two years ago (here). Please stop spreading the myth that camera-phones will be replacing dedicated still and video cameras. It won’t happen.

Landline Phones

Okay this one might actually be reasonable to predict. Cellular is spreading and the number of households without landlines is growing every year. Does this mean that landlines will be gone in a generation? Likely not. They will probably only exist as payphones, but they’ll still be around.

Slow-booting computers

If you’re computer cannot boot in under 60 seconds, you need to have a technician look at your computer to see what is causing the slow startup. My home laptop – which doesn’t have a solid-state drive – boots in less than 45 seconds, and it runs Windows 7. I also don’t have it loaded down with everything under the sun.

Plus if you install everything under the sun onto a computer with a solid-state hard drive, you’ll still slow it down. Some of my colleagues can attest to that.

Windowed Operating Systems

While what you might think of as a “window” in an operating system might go away, the only thing Microsoft has done with Windows 8 is give another definition for a window. As a Windows-centric software engineer, let me put out this little tidbit: every graphical element in Windows is a window or derives from a window. This is how Microsoft designed Windows, and the other windowed operating systems are likely designed in a similar fashion.

So windowed operating systems aren’t going anywhere. The only thing that’ll change is what you might consider a “window”.

Hard drives

Okay this person has no idea what a hard drive is as he tries to term a solid state drive as something other than a hard drive. A solid state drive is a hard drive. We have solid state hard drives right now, and they are growing in capacity each year, but they are much more expensive than the “platter” hard drives with which most people are familiar. Hard drives are only called “hard” drives because of their original technology counterpart which will likely be completely gone in a decade: the floppy drive.

Please learn your technology terminology before writing an article about it.

Movie theaters

Movie theaters aren’t going anywhere, and it’s stupid of anyone to suggest such. They might decline in popularity, but they will still be around. As long as there is consumer demand for the theater, it’ll exist.

The mouse

Raise your hand if you think touchscreens are going to replace the mouse? Yeah, I thought so. Mice provide much more precision with manipulating the pointer cursor than your finger, and as long as that precision is needed, mice will be around. It might be relegated to a few industries, such as photo editing and video production, but they’ll still be around.

3D glasses

The glasses are a pain, and people actually speaking favorably about using them are few and far between in my experience. In my opinion, I think the 3D craze with regard to movies is going to be short-lived, but I could be wrong.

Remote controls

Again this is a matter of a change in perception. What is considered a “remote control” to most people might go away, or it might not. Personally, I’m leaning toward the latter. You can already buy rather intelligent remote controls – I have a Logitech Harmony and love it – and they’ll likely only continue to get more intelligent, but they’re not going away.

Desktops

He’s actually pretty spot on, with the exception of his ending phrase:

By the time my son is in elementary school, PC vendors will have stopped producing most desktop computers, though all-in-ones with large screens, high-end workstations for people who do industrial-strength computations, and servers (probably in blade form) will remain. As someone who loves to build desktops from parts, I hope the market for PC components remains intact so my son and I will still be able to custom build a computer together, but I fear that option may disappear too.

Laptops are already replacing desktops simply because recent years have seen good laptops priced lower than their desktop counterparts. Laptops have typically cost more than their equivalent desktops, but only recently did that change, and we can expect the trend to continue. Does this mean the desktop is going away? So long as there are PC gamers, no.

Phone numbers

Again this is a matter of a change in perception. What we call a “phone number” today will likely not exist in a generation. Instead it’ll be replaced with something else. Will VoIP replace cellular? Don’t count on it.

Fax machines

This is probably the only section of his article with which I agree in its entirety. Fax machines are going away, folks.

Optical discs

Here’s what he has to say:

Yet with the growth in downloadable and streaming video services, all physical media is on the fast track to extinction.

It’s amazing how many people think the Internet will spell the end of the physical media. Any person who knows anything about the Internet, especially the current cloud-based offerings, knows the fallacy of this statement. All I can say to the rest of you is to just do some research. Optical discs might go away, but it’ll be replaced with a different physical media. Physical media for entertainment distribution will never go away.


Share
Filed in Technology | | Comments (0)

Student loan smokescreen

Sunday, April 22, 2012

President Obama’s latest focus on student loans is a vapid response to the unemployment issue:

We should be doing everything we can to put higher education within reach for every American — because at a time when the unemployment rate for Americans with at least a college degree is about half the national average, it’s never been more important. But here’s the thing: it’s also never been more expensive.

Unemployment or underemployment occurs when the kind of labor being supplied by a pool of prospects is not in demand or the demand is less than what is available. Think about that. Given this, will churning out more college graduates change the unemployment situation? If there is little demand for the skillsets reflected in the pool of college graduates, then the answer is an easy and obvious No.

The fact the unemployment rate among the college-educated is about half the unemployment rate of those with a high school diploma or less is, in my opinion, unimportant. And the focus on such a statistic is a smoke screen.

Now if skillsets are not in demand by existing companies, then certainly those college graduates can create new companies reflecting their sets of skills. That may provide economic stimulus and a greater pool of potential jobs – if they can drive market demand toward the skills they offer. This is not guaranteed, and market forces and its drivers and signals can take what in one year is a profitable company and the next year put them and their employees out of business. They can also take what is one year a struggling company and the next year make them a successful company needing to expand and create jobs to keep up with rising demand.

That is the way of it. But churning out more college graduates is not going to change that reality, only create more debt. However if you understand how the supply of money in the United States actually works, then you know that this is not only planned, but necessary.


Share
Filed in Capitalism, Economics, Life, Politics | | Comments (0)

One question to start it all

Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Take any problem you can think of in the world. Now let’s not be unrealistic and say things like “global warming” or “world hunger”. Think of something much smaller, preferably local to your area. Do you have something yet? You should be able to visualize the problem and be able to describe it in relatively concrete terms. Do you have one?

You do? Good.

Now, given that problem, ask yourself this question: presuming the government does not exist, and there currently was no option available by which this problem could be addressed (no product or service available that addresses the problem), how could that problem be addressed and solved?

Think hard about the answer to this question. The answer could come from many different angles, but think about it, possibly even collaborate with someone to form the answer. Now, when you have an answer, there is one task left to do.

Take your answer, and start a business. Congratulations, you’re now an entrepreneur, and if you carry your answer into action well enough, you’ll be creating jobs and… stimulating the economy!

That’s right, real economic stimulus comes from the private sector, not the government.


Share
Filed in Life, Politics | | Comments (0)

This is getting creepy…

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

I must have some kind of political sixth sense that is currently untapped…

On January 7, 2012, I posted an article calling for Rep. Gabrielle Giffords to resign, stating that it’d be in the best interest of the people she represented for her to step aside and let someone else take her seat and provide some real representation. About two weeks later, she announced her resignation.

And on Monday, April 9, I posted an open letter to Rick Santorum that said the best thing for him and his family, especially his daughter Bella, would be to end his campaign. The next day, Santorum announced he’d be "stepping aside".

Both have made courageous and carefully considered decisions, without doubt. And they were, arguably, decisions for the better. I doubt either of Giffords or Santorum have actually read my blog, so perhaps this is just purely coincidence.


Share
Filed in Politics | | Comments (0)

Open letter to Rick Santorum

Monday, April 9, 2012

Mr Santorum,

Consider this a statement from a concerned citizen regarding your presidential bid. While I’ve already written that I don’t feel you would be electable, let alone a good candidate for the Republican party, recent news regarding your daughter gives me reason to believe that you should not be in politics at all right now.

Your daughter’s plight has brought Trisomy 18, also called Edwards syndrome, to the forefront of discussions both in politics and medicine. This is certainly a good thing. The more publicity a particular disease or disorder receives, the more money research with regard to those respective diseases and disorders will bring. I cannot possibly underestimate the importance of that, especially with genetics being a major part of research in medicine right now.

The prognosis for your daughter is not good. You know this. Anyone who glances at even a passive article regarding Edwards syndrome will know this.

I hate to word it in this fashion, but I can think of no better: until your daughter passes away, she will be little more than a distraction to your political aspirations.

Since you have started your political campaign for President, your daughter has been admitted to the hospital several times. And each time you have been there. You are certainly a caring father, but your family comes first. Your daughter comes first.

Let me repeat this: your daughter comes first.

This means that you should not be rushing back out onto the campaign trail when your daughter is released from the hospital, like you have these past few times. You should be returning home to be by her side, and not for just a little while until you feel you can get away again and keep campaigning.

You might feel the country needs you, but your daughter, Bella, needs you more in words she likely cannot say.

And if you are hoping stories of your daughter will help your campaign, you are despicable in ways words cannot describe.

Mr Santorum, the time has come to withdraw from the presidential campaign. Not only do you stand little chance of catching up, let alone overtaking Mitt Romney in the delegate count, your daughter needs you more. You cannot be an effective President with your daughter’s illness hanging over your head. Again, you may feel this country needs you, but your daughter needs you more.

Leave the campaign trail and be with your family and your daughter. If you feel the desire, start a foundation for Trisomy 18 research. But national politics with a daughter in the condition Bella has presented is not a good combination, not for you, not for this country, and most certainly not for your daughter.

Sincerely,

A concerned citizen from the Kansas City metropolitan area


Share
Filed in Life, Politics | | Comments (0)

Science and ideology

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Science knows no ideology, so it upsets me greatly when people attempt to use scientific findings or conclusions to support their ideologies, whatever they may be. I hold a few ideologies, but those views are not compelled by science or scientific evidence or findings, but they are not contradicted by them either.

For example I am an atheist. I wasn’t converted by science or evolution. In fact I didn’t start studying evolution in any kind of detail until years after I declared myself to be an atheist. I am a strict constitutional originalist. There is certainly no science of any kind compelling that point of view.

Yet with science it seems that those who openly discuss against science try their damnedest to link any particular conclusion of the scientific evidence to an ideology, especially if the conclusions contradict a particular ideology already held. Look at the plight of Galileo for an historical example, as well as the still-ongoing controversy in the United States regarding evolution and the age of the Earth.

But my focus here is actually with a different area of science: climate change.

Now let me first say this: if you believe that our global climate doesn’t change and is not changing, then you can just stop reading now and go to a different web page, as you are someone who will not listen to reason and your presence here is a waste of my time. For the rest of us, I shall continue, but I will also add that I am not hugely versed in the climate change science, so I will be working more with summarizations than specifics.

What prompted my speech output is this video:

Science knows no ideology. Science knows only evidence and facts for which there is demonstrable evidence.

If you turn to science to look for evidence supporting an ideology with which you agree, or to denigrate an ideology with which you do not agree, then you are bastardizing the science. Science is reasoned explanations supported by evidence. Many ideologies tend to be far from reasoned with evidence being little more than a pipe dream.

And to deny that which is demonstrably true is to live in a dream.

The climate is changing. The climate has certainly not remained the same over the last 4.x billion years the Earth has existed. This planet has gone through many periods of warming and cooling. The climate has supported lush, tropical habitats that allowed for giant dinosaurs to roam the Earth, and it has been cold enough that mammoths survived only due to fur far thicker than your typical winter coat.

Right now the global temperature is on an upward trend. The data show this, even when accounting for anomalies and errors. Much of the trend has been linked to multiple facets of our existence and civilization. What is still unclear and difficult to predict is what the future impact this global warming will have upon the weather and climate.

The global human population did not reach 1 billion until around the year 1800 according to most approximations. The first Homo sapiens evolved approximately 100,000 years ago – I’m being conservative in that number, I realize, but to borrow the words of the late Christopher Hitchens, "I’ll take 100,000" as I don’t need a larger number to demonstrate my point. This means that for 99,800 years, the global human population lingered on slowly growing while still being checked by diseases and other naturally-occurring dangers until it breached the 1 billion mark about 200 years ago.

Over the last 200 years, the global human population exploded from 1 billion to the current estimate of just north of 7 billion individuals. The human population will expand by another 1 billion individuals every approximately 12 years at the current trend.

The global temperature is on an upward trend and the human population is on a upward trend, both of which have seen accelerations over the last 100 years. That is certainly a correlation that cannot go unnoticed, but is one causative of the other? Currently there is reason to believe the latter is influencing the former.

That is the science. That is what the evidence show and support. But where is the ideology? There is none, as again, science knows no ideology.

Yet many tie science to ideology and there is no reason for this. Science works only with that which is demonstrably factual. Anything else it discards. The evidence is completely blind to ideology and speculation.

One observation I find very troubling is that most ideologies to which ideologues attempt to link science are various perceived evils of one kind or another, but ones typically calling for mass killings, depopulations, and the like. Anti-vaxers say things along the lines of, to quote Viera Scheibner, PhD, "Vaccines are killing babies." Kent Hovind, along a similar line, said  "Satan is seeing to it that well-meaning parents are destroying their childrens” immune system by putting over 22 viruses into their system before the age of two." Again attempting to link science to an ideology or perceived evil.

The above-provided video asks the question of whether environmentalists are trying to rid the Earth of a surplus human population, and in asking the question the interviewer even brings up Charles Dickens’ "A Christmas Carol" in which Ebenezer Scrooge makes note of the "surplus population". Why is there this need to link science conclusions with which a person disagrees to an overly-negative ideology?

Creationists of various flavors have long tried to tie Hitler or eugenics to evolution. Yet even if the ties were genuine (they aren’t, by the way), how is that evidence against the theory of evolution, arguably the best-supported scientific theory?

That is the part which drives me up a wall. It seems people and organizations would rather use the association fallacy ("guilt by association") to denigrate findings and conclusions rather than address those findings and conclusions . And the "guilty by association" fallacy seems to be the common fallback of those who either cannot address that which they are attempting to attack or failed in such an attempt.

But while scientific findings and conclusions do not necessarily support or contradict any particular ideology, they certainly should not be used to argue compulsion. What do I mean?

Recently an article was published that showed that individuals who sit for longer than 8 hours a day have a higher chance of dying younger than those who sit for less than 8 hours a day. That is the conclusion of the medical study. Does this conclusion mean that we must now require that no person can be seated for longer than 8 hours total during the waking hours of their day?

Yet scientific findings have become the basis for laws in this country, sacrificing personal liberty and the freedom to make personal decisions. Salt and trans-fats are banned in many jurisdictions in the United States with others considering similar bans. While science can and should be a basis for guiding lifestyle decisions, with the assistance of a physician, it makes a poor justification for "one size, fits all" public policy decisions.


Share
Filed in Politics, Science | | Comments (0)

Putting nationalism ahead of freedom and the Constitution

Sunday, March 25, 2012

For a moment think about how the pledge of allegiance is typically recited. Think back to when you recited it in school. Was it with any kind of patriotic enthusiasm? In most cases, likely not. It’s typically mindlessly regurgitated in a monotonic, rhythmic, mechanized fashion by drowsy, unquestioning students at the start of a government-mandated school day. And I’ve even witnessed adults reciting the pledge of allegiance in the same kind of Pavlovian, monotonic fashion.

And do the students or even the adults really understand what the pledge of allegiance actually means? Of course not. The only "understanding" given to them is an incomplete and sometimes backwards description contrived by nationalist historians in a way to justify why every student in the United States must be compelled by law under fear of reprisal to recite a codified sentence derived from the words of a Christian socialist.

I mean, do you honestly believe that 5, 6 and 7 year-olds understand the pledge of allegiance? Of course they don’t. They are reciting it only to conform with their teacher’s instructions and, of course, to make their "patriotic" parents pleased that they’ve learned the pledge and can recite it from memory.

They don’t truly understand the words they are saying, and they certainly do not know the history behind those words. In fact so many people are unaware, likely blissfully so, of the history behind the pledge of allegiance. It’s one reason people can and do say asinine statements such as, "Americans who refuse to say the Pledge of Allegiance do not deserve their US citizenship."

Worse still is the number of people who believe that the Founding Fathers wrote it! Now Sarah Palin has been the commonly-exploited example of someone publicly implying the Founders wrote the pledge, and included "under God" at the same time. But I think I’ve found a better example.

A Christian woman named Allenah penned a blog article in August 2011 that attempts to describe what the pledge of allegiance actually means. Now she completely fumbles it because she breaks… it… down… word… for… word… with only a couple exceptions and tries to explain the pledge through the denotations for each word in the pledge. That is not only overkill, but a completely incorrect and backwards way to explain the pledge.

But it only gets better when she summarizes her attempt with this:

In breaking things down as we have, it makes perfect sense why there are many who refuse to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. To these people I say- find another country!

Our Founding Fathers knew exactly what they were doing! They knew that it would be all too easy to become complacent with the nation we have.

Perfect sense? Perhaps I’m missing something. I mean, not only does she completely bastardize the pledge of allegiance in her attempt to explain it, but she finishes up with a display of ignorance with regard to history (the Founding Fathers did not write the pledge, and there is no reason to believe they’d be in favor of one) and throws in the "love it or leave it" fallacy to polish it off. Nicely done, Allenah!

Ugh…

* * * * *

I’ve explained the pledge in detail (here) including my reasoning on why I refuse to recite the pledge of allegiance (here). Let me make this clear: it is un-American to recite the pledge of allegiance. That’s right, I just said you are being un-American by reciting the pledge. Why? You are pledging allegiance to the state. The pledge of allegiance calls for loyalty to the state.

Numerous people have tried to tell me, in one way or another, that pledging allegiance to the flag is pledging allegiance to the Constitution, or they’ve said the flag represents the Constitution:

Dude, the flag represents the Constitution. It represents America. Saying the pledge of allegiance isn’t blind allegiance, but allegiance to the idea of Freedom, which is what our Constitution stands for. It’s all the same. You are making way to much out of this.

Here’s an obvious question: why pledge allegiance to the flag when you can, by changing just one (1) word, actually pledge your allegiance directly to the Constitution?

As I pointed out to the person who made the above comment in reply to me, the flag was originally created during the American Revolution (originally adopted on June 14, 1777), long before the Constitution, making it impossible for the flag to represent the Constitution. And as the flag can be changed at any time by our current government, through an ordinary act of Congress, how can the flag represent the Constitution? How can the flag represent anything other than the government that defined it (see Title 4 of the United State Code)?

Prior to mandates to recite the pledge, overturned in 1943 by the United States Supreme Court, the only time a declaration of allegiance was required by anyone was when mandated by a standing law. And those mandates typically required you to have been elected or appointed to some office or have entered the employ of the government. For the rest of us civilians, it was never demanded or necessary. The Constitution of the United States does not require a declaration of allegiance when entering office, not even for the office of President of the United States (from Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution):

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Freedom knows no allegiance. Freedom requires no allegiance, nor any declaration of allegiance, and my ability and right to exercise and enjoy the liberties protected by the Constitution is in no way conditional upon declaring or pledging allegiance "to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands", and so on and so on.

As such there is no reason to believe the Founding Fathers would have recited anything close to the pledge. In fact they likely would’ve been abhorrently appalled by it and the Lincolnian nationalism from which it is derived. And if you are confused by the notion of Lincolnian nationalism, reacquaint yourself with the Gettysburg Address. Thomas DiLorenzo elaborated on the idea of Lincolnian nationalism and Lincolnian statism in an article called "Pledging Allegiance to the Omnipotent Lincolnian State" (link at bottom).

* * * * *

Arguably the pledge of allegiance receiving the kind of attention it enjoyed is due only to the place where it made its genesis: a popular, family-oriented magazine called The Youth’s Companion. And the pledge was concocted and published to promote American nationalism. And what a success that has been.

Today as a result of over a hundred years of reciting, or rather regurgitating the pledge in its various forms, we have a country of people who have completely forgotten the Federalist ideas that are present in the Constitution. Instead of recognizing the pledge for its nationalist propaganda roots and ridding our society of it, the citizenry is more concerned, arguably more than ever, with protecting and preserving the pledge of allegiance, especially the words "under God", and demonize as "un-American" anyone against the pledge while regurgitating nationalist propaganda and contrived statements as a means of defending it.

Our citizenry seems more concerned with protecting, preserving and defending the pledge of allegiance than it is our own Constitution. How is this? Ask a Republican if Republicans abide by the Constitution, then ask them if any act by George W. Bush while he was President violated the Constitution. Then ask them if any act by Barack Obama violated the Constitution. Compare the responses.

Republicans and Christians overwhelmingly want to protect and defend the pledge of allegiance. But they don’t recognize that the Federal government has been operating far outside its constitutional boundaries and limits for a long, long, long time, including under George W. Bush and also under Ronald Reagan, with little if any intention of correcting the problem. But Republicans aren’t alone in this either. The only difference is that Democrats and liberals aren’t nearly as vehement about preserving the pledge.

Indeed a bill called the Pledge Protection Act, which sought to remove the ability for the Federal judiciary to hear cases regarding the pledge of allegiance, has always been introduced into the House of Representatives by a Republican: Todd Akin, R-MO(2). The bill has also garnered typically Republican support, seeing success in the 108th and 109th Congresses due to Republicans and the majority they enjoyed, and was introduced into the Senate during the 109th Congress by Jon Kyl, junior Senator from Arizona serving with John McCain. Despite some success in the House, the bill never went anywhere in the Senate.

As such I must commend Republican nationalists for holding true to the party’s Lincolnian roots. While they speak of limiting the Federal government and pulling the Federal government back to compliance with the Constitution, their actions speak much louder as revealing them to be the hypocrites they really are: nationalists who want to continue the idea of a monopolistic national government operating outside the Constitution. Their motives and propaganda would likely disgust the Founders and Drafters they venerate and revere.

* * * * *

Ridding this nation of the 120 year-old curse known as the pledge of allegiance is long overdue. Despite many attempts by so many people, including Representative Ron Paul (who incorrectly referred to Francis Bellamy as an atheist), I am not convinced the pledge of allegiance can be segregated from its nationalist origins. Nor can it be segregated from its history.

Allegiance, whether declared or not, is not required to enjoy the protections of liberty provided by the Constitution. As I said earlier herein and elsewhere, liberty knows no allegiance. Being free does not require you to pledge your allegiance to any state. And the Founders certainly did not ask nor require that any person declare any allegiance to enjoy the liberty described by the Declaration of Independence as inalienable.

The Constitution of the United States transcends the government of the United States and the States therein. But if the citizenry does not affirm it as such, the government that is to be restricted by the Constitution can more easily escape its restrictions without being noticed. And the citizenry has not affirmed the Constitution as superior for such a long time. This I feel is due in part to the pledge of allegiance, as its recitation has the person improperly placing their allegiance, but that is only part of the issue. The big problem is the sentiment spreading through the citizenry that your rights are conditional upon nationalistic ideals, and they are not.

No person should be declaring their allegiance to the state. Instead, if you have the need or desire to declare any allegiance at all, declare allegiance to the Constitution of the United States (adapted from the oath of citizenship):

I do solemnly swear [or affirm] that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I shall bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I take this obligation freely without reservation or purpose of evasion; [so help me God.]

Along with affirming the Constitution to be the Supreme Law of the Land, we must also study the Constitution and understand what powers it provides the government. Only when the people understand the structure of the fence that is supposed to contain our government can we better enforce the restrictions the Constitution provides and more faithfully demand our government adhere to those restrictions without fail or exception.

* * * * *

I love watching nationalists defend the pledge of allegiance. You never know what they’ll say next, and often what they say is easily refuted. It’s like watching creationists defend the story of Noah’s Ark against the mountains of evidence contradicting it. In response to my assertion that our allegiance should be to the Constitution, one person said this:

We as citizens don’t pledge allegiance to the Constitution because WE DO NOT HAVE DUTIES to carry out in which we must PROTECT the Constitution and everything it represents.

As citizens of the United States, we are the last and ultimate arbiter of the Constitution. We must support and defend it. We are its protection.

Support and defend the Constitution by demanding our representatives in government obey the limits of that Constitution. If they want to exceed those limits, then we must demand they pull back or go through the Amendment process established in Article V of the Constitution to be granted the new power they seek.

Support and defend the Constitution by exercising the rights the Constitution protects. Assert those rights every day in everything you do. Exercise your rights of free speech by being unafraid to speak your mind and voice your opinion. Exercise your right to bear arms by purchasing a firearm. And learn how to assert with confidence your Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights by reading the blog and watching the videos provided by an organization called Flex Your Rights.

Assert your rights and demand our elected and appointed officials hold to their oaths to be faithful to the Constitution. And for God’s sake stop pledging allegiance to the flag.

* * * * *

Links and resources

Videos


Share
Filed in Constitution, Pledge of Allegiance | | Comments (0)

Give credit where it belongs

Friday, March 23, 2012

Being on Facebook, occasionally you see people post things that catch your attention, such as this little number:

Here’s an update on my wonderful son-in-law, GOD has been working his healing hands on him!!!! Everyday since Sunday 3-18 [redacted] has been showing improvement.
This has taken ALL of us to our knees. GOD is good and we are keeping our eyes on him, not what is but, what is to come and that is the “Miricale of GODS Healing in [redacted].”thank-you for the prayers! Love [redacted]

This showed up on my news feed courtesy of one of my other friends making a comment. When I first saw it, I swear my heart stopped for a moment. And no my heart didn’t stop because I was suddenly taken by the reverence to God being shown here. No my heart stopped because of what is lacking from this anecdote.

When you are receiving care in a hospital, there is a class of elite people who will see to your every need while you are there. They will ensure you are as comfortable as possible, and are on call whenever you need them.

They are the nurses.

With the above anecdote, I can guarantee you that nurses have been watching over the patient around the clock with the attending physician checking in periodically for new orders, discussing the vitals and the like. And yet this person feels the need to show great reverence to God without once thanking the people who I can also guarantee are truly responsible for the progress the patient is showing.

When I see anecdotes like the one reproduced herein, I am glad I’m an atheist because I will always make sure that credit goes where it is properly due. Revering God without thanking the nursing staff is an insult to the nursing staff!

Thank the nurses. Thank the attending physicians. They are truly responsible for the care you receive in the hospital. Especially the nurses who have to deal with people at their worst.

If you’re reading this and you are a nurse at a hospital, I want you to know how much I appreciate the service you provide. Nurses provided excellent care to my wife when she was in the hospital in June, and the doctors who performed and the nurses who assisted in her surgery are the reason the surgery went well, and the nurses post-op are the reason her recovery went smoothly.

The nurses deserve the thanks. Not God.

Update: the person mentioned in the quote above passed away on March 30, 2012, a week after this blog post was published.


Share
Filed in Health care, Life, Religion | | Comments (0)

Rick Santorum is not electable

Sunday, March 18, 2012

Rick Santorum seems to be the top contender to Mitt Romney in the current race for the Republican nomination. Gingrich is, thankfully, without a prayer in this race, and I certainly wish Ron Paul was doing quite better. But of the two front-runners, only Romney actually has a chance of beating Obama in November.

The reason is quite simple. Mitt Romney is more moderate, by far, than Rick Santorum. Santorum is way, way too far to the right on his political leanings. And as much as Santorum would like to make this campaign more about the current fiscal state of the nation and the coming debt crisis, Obama’s campaign and those supporting it will ensure Santorum’s message is clouded by his far-right social conservatism.

So why not Gingrich? Frankly he has way, way too many skeletons in his closet. As an example, how can Gingrich say he supports traditional marriage when he is currently on his third marriage and has had affairs in the past? And that’s only one example.

Aside from Romney, the only person currently still in the race that is practically untouchable is also someone the Republicans want to shun just as much as the Democrats: Ron Paul. For a long time, people on both sides tried to find something, anything on which they could attack him, and all they could get is some newsletters that were published two decades ago. That’s it. It’s why the media and conservatives jumped on it when they surfaced again.

Romney, Santorum and Gingrich, however, will provide much easier prey for Obama’s campaign.

Now Ron Paul is just as unelectable as Santorum, in my opinion, but definitely not for the same reasons. You see, Ron Paul isn’t afraid to tell the truth on a matter, something that, frankly, scares the living shit out of people. People don’t want to hear what he has to say, even though he is the only candidate who predicted our coming debt crisis decades ago and predicted the recession after the dotcom bubble exploded.

Ideologically, Ron Paul is untouchable. He can keep the argument focused on the economy.

So basically we’re left with Romney and Santorum. Of the two, Romney will withstand attacks by Obama better than Santorum because Romney doesn’t have much that Obama can attack. Romney’s been a bit of a flip-flopper, but what politician hasn’t? (Umm… Ron Paul.) Romney is a Mormon, something with which ideological Republicans might be uncomfortable, and that might be something Obama can attack as well, along with "RomneyCare".

But Santorum and his far-right, theocratic-style beliefs will be a non-stop treat to Obama and his supporters.

And if The Daily Beast’s John Avlon is correct, a Santorum nomination will end up with a loud thud as millions of independents flee to support Obama or a third party candidate and the GOP is defined by their theocratic nominee.

But as Avlon points out, if Romney is nominated and loses to Obama, they may blame it on the fact that Romney is more moderate and may instead drive the GOP further to the right, which will be their undoing. So basically the only thing right now that can save the GOP, aside from a Ron Paul presidency, is a Mitt Romney presidency. All other outcomes don’t appear to end well for the Republican Party as we currently know it.

Perhaps 2012 will be the wake-up call the Republican Party and hard-right Republicans desperately need.


Share
Filed in Politics | | Comments (0)

Cry, the Beloved Constitution: A rebuttal

Saturday, March 17, 2012

When reading of the New York Times discussing the Constitution of the United States, I often expect that they will, in many ways, get it wrong. And thankfully a recent op-ed authored by J. Harvie Wilkinson, III, proved to be no disappointment.

What is mildly disappointing, however, is that Wilkinson is a judge. Not just any judge, but a Federal judge sitting on the bench of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. He was appointed to the Federal bench in 1984 by President Reagan and confirmed by a divided Senate with a vote of 58-39.

He is also the author of the book Cosmic Constitutional Theory: Why Americans are Losing Their Inalienable Right to Self-Governance. I have not read the book and cannot recommend for or against it. I am not familiar with the Judge and his political leanings, if any, so my entire focus here will be just on the text of the article to which I am responding. One thing that is apparent from this piece is that the Judge is an advocate of judicial restraint.

The article in question is called "Cry, the Beloved Constitution" and was published March 12, 2012, on page A21 of the New York Times.

Judge Wilkinson does correctly state at the beginning that the interpretations and exercise of the Constitution by both liberals and conservatives – i.e. Democrats and Republicans, respectively – is certainly not within its language. Republicans have their sights most set on the Courts while Democrats seek to install new "rights" within the United States Code that have no basis in our Constitution, unless you take a very, very, very broad interpretation of the Ninth Amendment. Judge Wilkinson’s observation is certainly accurate and worth noting:

The result is a national jurisprudence whetted by political appetite, with our democratic values as the victims.

This was especially true with the jurisprudential landscape laid out in the 1930s with the Supreme Court’s over-expansive interpretations of the Commerce Clause and their effective rubber-stamping of FDR’s legislation.

He begins his article by responding to Republicans:

Conservatives increasingly bemoan Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce, as illustrated by the debate over the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that individuals buy health insurance. They argue that Congress can only regulate activity, not inactivity, and so when it gets involved in a decision by a consumer to not purchase health care, it is going far beyond its reach.

If only it were that simple.

I agree, if only it were that simple. However this reduction of the Republicans’ view of the Commerce Clause is woefully incomplete. Republicans are correct that the Constitution does not grant the Federal government the ability to mandate anything, but instead provides the Federal government only regulatory power. Just as you cannot regulate the flow of water in a bucket, but you can a river or garden hose, the Federal government cannot regulate someone’s nonparticipation in a market segment, but its power to regulate only comes into play when that person chooses to participate in a market segment.

Now all of economics derives from two words: man acts. While inaction is the opposite of action, the decision to not act is an action. However that decision exists purely within the realm of a person’s mind and intentions and is outside the realm and purview of government regulation.

While you can put a stick into a bucket of standing water and stir it to get it moving, thus providing some regulation to the water’s movement, the Federal government is not granted the power to stir our economy with its legislative pen, only regulate those parts of our economy already moving.

A vibrant economic order requires some political predictability, and the prospect of judges’ striking down commercial regulation on ill-defined and subjective bases is a prescription for economic chaos that the framers, in a simpler time, had the good sense to head off.

Let’s take this in its two parts, starting with the first: "a vibrant economic order requires some political predictability". This is very abundantly true. Any person who is familiar with economics can see the truth in this statement without having to exert much thought: fear of future government regulation can have an impact on business decisions today, including the decision to start a business.

But the second part isn’t accurate. It isn’t the prospect of judges striking down regulations that is a prescription for economic chaos, it is the prospect of Congress or one of the many Federal agencies enacting new regulations and restrictions that is such a prescription.

When some teenagers nearly die after drinking a caffeinated energy drink and a Senator talks about outright banning the product from store shelves nationwide, people become nervous about what will be banned next, and this influences decisions by the consumers who purchase products and the businesses that make existing products and devise future products. If there’s the prospect that years of product research and development, including market research, will be wasted and unrecoverable with the stroke of the legislative pen, businesses may instead decide against introducing a new product, and we are all worse off when that occurs.

[I]f courts read the Constitution in such a way that it enables them to make Congress ineffectual, and instead to promote 50 state regulatory regimes in an era of rapidly mounting global challenges, the risks should escape no one. Making our charter more parochial while other nations flex their economic muscle seems like poor timing.

It is impossible for a Court to read the Constitution in a way to make Congress ineffectual. The Constitution lays out specific, enumerated powers for Congress and Congress is not to do anything that goes beyond those powers. Again Congress is granted regulatory power, yet most of what Congress has done, including the aforementioned Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, is unconstitutional.

Next the Judge turns to the Democrats.

[Liberals] have forsaken the textual and historical foundations of that document in favor of judicially decreed rights of autonomy. It is one thing to value those rights our cherished Bill of Rights sets forth. But to create rights from whole cloth is to turn one’s back on law.

It is difficult to escape the observation that the Ninth Amendment is the most ignored Amendment in the entirety of the Constitution: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This is especially true on the part of Republicans, as the Ninth Amendment is quite inconvenient with regard to advancing their agenda, but it is also true of Democrats as well in many ways.

Obviously where the government is granted power, the Ninth Amendment must cede to that power. For example, any perceived or actual right of the people to be free from government regulation with regard to interstate commerce must cede to the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce.

But where the Federal government exercises powers in excess of those granted in the Constitution, the Ninth Amendment is intended to be the language that gives the people the power to say the government has gone too far. Imagine in your mind that the Federal government is the Balrog of Moria and the Ninth Amendment is Gandalf standing on that stone bridge shouting "You shall not pass!" Similar concept, as the government always exercises its authority in violation of the rights of the people. It doesn’t matter what the government does, as it will always violate the rights of the people in the process. But the Constitution is the way the people have, through the ratifying conventions, ceded certain rights to the Federal government.

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides similar power to the people with regard to the States.

So while the Ninth Amendment seems to be the most ignored Amendment with regard to debating the Constitution, it is the most cited Amendment when lawsuits against the Federal and State governments are filed in Court. When the people cite the Ninth Amendment against the government, it is then the responsibility of the government to cede the stolen power to the people, or satisfactorily justify it from elsewhere in the Constitution.

[C]reating constitutional rights without foundation frays the community fabric and, with it, the very notion that the majority can enact into law some expression of shared values that make ours a society whose whole is more than the sum of its parts.

Yes and no. It depends in whole on what "rights" are being created out of whole cloth. If we’re talking about what I’ve previously termed "rights of the silver platter" (here), then certainly this has that ability. After all if you attempt to assert the people have a constitutional right to be lazy (they don’t, by the way), then this can and will undermine much of our society.

But society is nothing without the individual: autonomous individuals capable of acting on our own wills and desires. As such when the majority seek to restrict the ability of a person to act on their own wills and desires, that restriction must very much be justified, and saying "because we’re the majority and majority rules" doesn’t cut it.

Again where the government acts, it is always in violation of the rights of the people. As such the actions of the government must be such that the violation of those rights is as minimal as possible. So when the government requires people to purchase a license from the government to get married, the people can legitimately demand that such a requirement not be exercised in such a way as to restrict the ability of two consenting, contractually competent adults from marrying.

But when the government seeks to restrict the actions of an individual where the effect of those actions goes no further than that individual and has no impact upon another person, then those restrictions warrant extra scrutiny.

Society is nothing without the individual, and individuals are nothing without their individual rights.

I’ll close with the Judge Wilkinson’s closing paragraph, which satisfactorily sums up everything:

All factions owe their fellow citizens the hope and the prospect of democratic change, not the message that their views have been constitutionally condemned and their opponents’ views carved in the stone of our founding charter. Restraint has much to commend it as a judicial value, not least of which is that it extends the hand of tolerance and respect to those whose views we may not share, but whose citizenship we do share and whose love of family, community and country burns no less brightly than our own.


Share
Filed in Constitution, Law, Rights | | Comments (0)