Constitution

Our Imbecilic Constitution, a rebuttal

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Sanford Levinson, JD, PhD, is a recognized expert on Constitutional law. He received his Juris Doctor degree from Stanford Law School and received a PhD from Harvard University. His Bachelor of Arts degree came from Duke. He is also a law professor on the faculty at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law and has made numerous contributions to the literature on Constitutional law. But he is arguably most notable for calling for a new Constitution for the United States.

On May 28, 2012, he penned an article for the New York Times blog “Campaign Stops” called “Our Imbecilic Constitution“, in which he also reflects these views.

Arguably the largest fallacy regarding the Constitution is the idea that the Federal government is merely a large state government: a government like a State government, but merely at a “national” level. While this is arguably true in practice, it was not the kind of government the Constitution initially established. Because the point of view with regard to the Constitution and the Federal government has changed so much, basically a complete flip from what the Drafters intended, it is no surprise that people think of the Federal government as just one large State government.

The Constitution established a federated republic of independent sovereign States. A republic means that the will of the majority is tempered by the rights of everyone. Federated means simply an alliance wherein part of the sovereignty of its members is surrendered to the federation in exchange for certain benefits (see Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution). This is clearly not what we have today, which is why many States are once again attempting to reassert their sovereignty, and because the Federal government has grown so large and overbearingly powerful, those States are being met with resistance at every turn, including from the people within their borders.

The Federal government was to be considered subordinate to the States, because it was to be a government of the States. This can be clearly seen by looking at the First Article of the Constitution which defines Congress. That is the longest article in the Constitution, but it defines the smallest branch of the Federal government. We have two houses of Congress, initially chosen in different means, due to the Connecticut Compromise, which was a compromise to prevent the largest States from attaining a significant amount of power in the new national government. Indeed the Senate was comprised of members chosen and appointed by the State legislatures (changed with the Seventeenth Amendment), and in the Senate was vested the most power, arguably the most important is veto power over the President’s nominations. But with equal representation of all States in the Senate, it also neutralized any overbearing influence the larger States might have at the Federal level by keeping it contained in the House of Representatives and checked by the Senate.

The Constitution was, as I’ve argued here before, to separate the Federal government from the People. The only involvement the People were to have in the Federal government was through the House of Representatives. The States were to retain the control of the Federal government. The People were to instead have control over their own State and local governments, so by proxy of the States the People do control the Federal government, but not directly, and this was intended. The People were never supposed to have any more influence over the Federal government than just the House of Representatives.

Obviously in practice we have deviated so far from the initial foundations of the Constitution that it is no surprise that prominent law professors argue from a fallacious platform:

Begin with the Senate and its assignment of equal voting power to California and Wyoming; Vermont and Texas; New York and North Dakota.

Again this was intended to neutralize the influence of the larger States in what is intended to be a government of all States.

Consider that, although a majority of Americans since World War II have registered opposition to the Electoral College, we will participate this year in yet another election that “battleground states” will dominate while the three largest states will be largely ignored.

I agree that the Electoral College is problematic. But direct election of the President would be even more so. Having everyone at the Federal level directly elected (some have even called for direct election of Supreme Court justices) would break down the separation of powers intended by the Constitution. Tyranny would be the most likely result as it would turn our republic into a democracy: “five wolves and one sheep vote on what they want to have for supper” to borrow the words of Larry Flynt.

The fact that Presidential elections focus on “battleground states” is not a problem with the Electoral College, and going to direct election of the President won’t change that situation. Remember that in most elections, the Electoral College result mirrors the popular vote result. Instead the focus on “battleground states” reflects the problem with the People. I observed such in a previous article (see “Advice and Consent“):

The People do not have nearly as much ability [to keep the Federal government in check], especially given how easily we can be reduced into pesky, pestilent, squandering, argumentative and belligerent mobs, often at the mention of only a few words. In other words the People tend to act in a democratic fashion, as history has shown, and that is the fastest way to erode a republic.

The focus on “battleground states” is because of how political factions and political parties have dominated government. Everyone thinks of politicians only in terms of D or R, and sometimes I. People focus on whether a particular party will have a majority in a particular house in Congress rather than on what the members of those houses will do. And so because we are so focused on to which political party a person belongs, and we’ve devolved into bickering, belligerent mobs, is it no surprise that Presidential candidates focus more heavily on which States that don’t seem to be controlled by one of those mobs? It’s almost like gangs in inner cities duking it out over which neighborhoods and blocks they’ll control.

But if one must choose the worst single part of the Constitution, it is surely Article V, which has made our Constitution among the most difficult to amend of any in the world… The near impossibility of amending the national Constitution not only prevents needed reforms; it also makes discussion seem futile and generates a complacent denial that there is anything to be concerned about.

This “near impossibility” should be seen as a good thing, as the intent of the Fifth Article was to keep the size and power of the Federal government limited. This again goes to the plight of the smaller States: you make the Constitution easy to amend and you can easily end up with a “tyranny of the majority”. Make the Constitution easy to amend and you could end up with all kinds of tyranny.

But then again, we do have a Federal government that has been operating outside the Constitution for a long, long time, so it seems that having an amendment process at all is rather unnecessary. It seems Congress is just making up powers as it goes along.

But this difficult amendment process doesn’t make discussion seem futile. Instead its intention is to keep discussion at the appropriate level. Instead of having a Federal government that attempts to handle everything, why can these questions not instead be answered by the States? Is it necessary for the Federal government to tackle… well… everything? Of course not. And the Constitution stipulates in Article I, Section 8, that only certain questions should be answered at the Federal level, and specifically denies the ability to address certain questions in Article I, Section 9.

Our focus needs to shift such that we look to our State governments to address problems instead of the Federal government.

[Obama and Romney], like most contemporary Americans, have seemingly lost their capacity for thinking seriously about the extent to which the Constitution serves us well. Instead, the Constitution is enveloped in near religious veneration. (Indeed, Mormon theology treats it as God-given.)

The Constitution is not supposed to serve “us”. This is the lost focus I have been addressing herein. We have lost focus on the true nature of the Constitution and have, in our minds, morphed the Constitution into what we think it is instead of what it actually is. Indeed, most people are ignorant of the Constitution. That is a problem. And it needs to be solved.

And I cannot tell you into how many debates I’ve found myself with people arguing that the Constitution is either God-given or based on God’s laws.

But the “near religious veneration” Dr Levinson is observing I think is merely his own clouded judgment. The Constitution lays out the powers and scope of the Federal government. The Federal government has been operating outside the boundaries of the Constitution for so long that in recent years the People are, slowly, starting to recognize this and are demanding a change of course. If that is “near religious veneration”, then so is demanding your landlord abide by the terms of the lease.

But like many people who appear to not understand the true scope and nature of the Constitution, Dr Levinson has some ideas in mind in how to “reform” the Constitution, short of scrapping it in favor of a new one.

There have been more than 230 state constitutional conventions; each state has had an average of almost three constitutions.

Okay, perhaps he is calling for scrapping it and creating a new Constitution. And this is a clear demonstration of the loss of focus. The Constitution, again, established a federated republic of independent, sovereign States. If a State wants to scrap its Constitution and start anew, that is their business, and it doesn’t affect anyone but the State that so chooses. Scrapping the Constitution of the United States, however, affects everyone.

We could permit each newly elected president to appoint 50 members of the House and 10 members of the Senate, all to serve four-year terms until the next presidential election. Presidents would be judged on actual programs, instead of hollow rhetoric.

Oh this is dangerous beyond recognition. And this undermines the separation of powers that the Constitution puts into place. The President is to be subordinate to Congress, to enact into action and enforcement (while examining the Constitution himself) the laws passed by Congress.

If enhanced presidential power seems too scary, then the solution might lie in reducing, if not eliminating, the president’s power to veto legislation and to return to true bicameralism, instead of the tricameralism we effectively operate under. We might allow deadlocks between the two branches of Congress to be broken by, say, a supermajority of the House or of Congress voting as a whole.

What Dr Levinson seems to have forgotten, however, is that Presidents hardly ever veto legislation. According to Wikipedia, as of the time of this writing, President Obama has vetoed only two (2) bills. Yes, just two, out of how many that have come to his desk for signature?

And most Presidents vetoed so few bills as to not even register 1%. Andrew Johnson, who ascended to office after Lincoln’s assassination, vetoed just 21 bills while in office, but that amounted to 71% of the bills that came to his desk, and he was also overridden half the time. And typically the more vetoes a President has, the more that are overridden, and that requires a supermajority of both houses to accomplish.

So where exactly is the “tricameralism”? It sounds to me like most Presidents just rubber-stamp legislation.

However his idea of allowing deadlocks in Congress to be broken by a “supermajority of the House or of Congress voting as a whole” seems like a reasonable idea. I’ll have to see if he’s ever elaborated or explored the idea further. If anyone can, please point me to any resources in which he discusses the idea.

One might also be inspired by the states to allow at least some aspects of direct democracy. California — the only state with a constitution more dysfunctional than that of the United States — allows constitutional amendment at the ballot box. Maine, more sensibly, allows its citizenry to override legislation they deem objectionable. Might we not be far better off to have a national referendum on “Obamacare” instead of letting nine politically unaccountable judges decide?

I would certainly love to have a national referendum on “Obamacare”. And many people have called for national referendums on Federal legislation. The idea is problematic, and also emblematic of the lost scope of the Constitution. We should not be needing to have national referendums on any Federal legislation, as the Federal government should only be writing and enacting legislation within the scope of its enumerated powers.

But in denigrating the Fifth Article of the Constitution, it seems that Dr Levinson has forgotten that the Article stipulates two methods of amending the Constitution (emphasis added):

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress

The convention process gives the People a more direct ability of proposing and enacting Amendments to the Constitution instead of waiting for Congress to do so. Sure it’s not voting by ballot box, but it’s pretty close. And we’re talking about the Constitution of the United States as well, not a State constitution. To treat them as one-in-the-same is fallacious at best, yet that is what a lot of people, Dr Levinson included, seem to be doing.

As such the ability for a national vote on amending the Constitution also bypasses the protection the Constitution provides to the smaller States. A national vote means that the 15 largest States could work together to enact their will on the other 35. Voting along State lines through a convention process or by ratification through State legislatures neutralizes that kind of influence before it can occur.

Instead to ratify an Amendment to the Constitution currently requires the “yea” vote of 38 State legislatures or conventions. To elect a President, however, requires winning the electoral votes of just the 12 largest States.

Or consider the fact that almost all states have rejected the model of judges nominated by the president and then confirmed by the Senate. Most state judges are electorally accountable in some way, and almost all must retire at a given age. Many states have adopted commissions to limit the politicization of the appointment process.

Look to Iowa and the 2010 voting to see why this is a bad idea. This becomes very problematic when you talk about the Supreme Court of the United States. Judicial decisions that are influenced by the will of the people will lead to a very hefty patchwork of jurisprudence that would be difficult, if not impossible, for Courts to use as advice in future cases.

The problem we have today are judges and justices that are influenced by politics instead of adhering to the law and the Constitution. It is laughable to say we have a truly impartial judiciary.

What was truly admirable about the framers was their willingness to critique, indeed junk, the Articles of Confederation. One need not believe that the Constitution of 1787 should be discarded in quite the same way to accept that we are long overdue for a serious discussion about its own role in creating the depressed (and depressing) state of American politics.

The Constitution didn’t create the depressed and depressing state of American politics. The People did.

Politics

False Hope and No Change… from either Democrats or Republicans

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Aren’t campaigns for President fun to watch? You see a bunch of people who have aligned themselves behind a particular moniker that is supposed to describe how they feel about everything ("Republicans hate women" and "Democrats hate the unborn" and so on…) duking it out to become the next man or woman in the White House.

Because they all think the President actually controls the country… How ignorant can you get?

One thing that should be clear to everyone is simply this: elections don’t change squat. If you think electing Romney will set this country on a better path, let the shenanigans of the RNC convention shatter that hope. If you think that somehow we will have a balanced budget because of Romney, bear in mind that the United States has not had a "balanced budget" since Andrew Jackson. We never even had a balanced budget under Clinton as the deficit was hidden behind borrowing from the Social Security Administration instead of through publicly-offered government bonds, but there was still a deficit.

Go to the US Treasury’s page on the public debt and you’ll see a category called "Intra-governmental holdings". The number reflected there (which is over $4.776 Trillion as of 8/30/2012) is money that the Treasury is borrowing from the Social Security Administration along with probably also Medicare and other agencies whose budgets are not funded by general taxation. Imagine if that money was never borrowed by the Treasury. Now Social Security would still be unsustainable long-term, but it’d be a lot easier to fund those programs in preparation for the coming retirement exodus of the "baby boomers" without having to borrow even more.

Now given the size of the real estate bubble that burst in 2008 and the financial and credit vacuum that resulted from this, is it really any surprise that the country and economy are not improving, or improving very quickly? Given how heavily involved in commerce and the economy our government has become, is it any surprise that things have stagnated and not improved much? It shouldn’t be.

Yet in 2008, then-Senator Obama promised "hope" and "change". And when you are otherwise ignorant of how things actually work in this country, you can fall prey to those kinds of ideas. I did. I didn’t vote for Obama, though, but I was deeply indoctrinated into the cult of the State.

And now people falsely believe that Obama either needs more time or that Romney is the man to improve the economy. Not so. The only way the economy is going to improve is if we stop looking toward Washington and our respective State capitals for change or relief and we start creating the necessary economic change ourselves. But then there’s one giant problem looming over us that could keep all of that from happening: the Federal Reserve.

The vast majority do not know where all of the money currently in circulation originates. Without knowing this and without knowing the kind of role such money creation and origination plays in our economy and everyday commerce, how can anything improve? It can’t.

Our monetary system is designed such that all money is created out of debt. It is operated by international interests in such a way as to keep us perpetually in debt. They control the strings of our economy through inflation and loans. And to change this is to upset and unseat some very powerful people and organizations. This is not something that can be done easily. It cannot happen overnight, nor can it happen in a few years. We are talking about an economy whose medium of exchange is based on debt and expanded through inflation and loans and in which bubbles, insolvencies, foreclosures and defaults are guaranteed.

To this there is no easy answer. To this problem there is no easy solution. Any solution and answer requires a tremendous amount of pain to be borne by everyone in the economy, and it will affect the poorest much harder than the richest. But on the other side of the horizon would be a much more stable economy instead of one built on pure fraud.

Only when you truly understand the nature of the problem can you begin to offer real solutions instead of false hope.

Politics

Political arm candy

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Representative Paul Ryan [R-WI(1)] can, in many respects, be called "diet Ron Paul", in that economically and fiscally, Paul Ryan wants many of the things Ron Paul was pushing. Key among these is a push toward a more sound fiscal policy, though his plan does not, in my opinion and that of many others, go far enough to stave off the economic disaster that is coming. It would only kick the bucket further down the road.

Paul Ryan is also quite young, being younger than President Obama by a little under 9 years – Paul Ryan was born only in 1970, while President Obama was born in 1961. He would have a bit of appeal toward the younger demographic than Vice President Joe Biden (b. 1942), though Mitt Romney (b. 1947) isn’t much younger than Biden. One should recall that Obama’s age was one of the key factors his campaign wielded against the significantly older Senator John McCain (b. 1936).

But the question must be asked: why was Paul Ryan selected and readily embraced by the Republican Party for the Vice Presidential nomination?

Remember that with respect to only a few, Vice Presidents tend to fade into obscurity. Only fourteen (14) Vice Presidents of forty-seven (47) total ever serving went on to become President:

  • John Adams – elected 1796, served one term
  • Thomas Jefferson – elected 1800, served one term
  • Martin Van Buren – elected 1836, served one term
  • John Tyler – ascended after death of William Henry Harrison, not elected after term
  • Millard Fillmore – ascended after death of Zachary Taylor, not elected after term
  • Andrew Johnson – ascended after assassination of Abraham Lincoln, not elected after term
  • Chester A. Arthur – ascended after assassination of James Garfield, not elected after term
  • Theodore Roosevelt – ascended after death of William McKinley, elected in 1904
  • Calvin Coolidge – ascended after death of Warren Harding, elected in 1924
  • Harry S. Truman – ascended after death of Franklin Roosevelt, elected in 1948
  • Lyndon Johnson – ascended after assassination of John Kennedy, elected in 1964
  • Richard Nixon – elected 1968, 1972, resigned 1974
  • Gerald Ford – ascended after resignation of Richard Nixon, not elected after term
  • George H.W. Bush – elected 1988, served one term

As you can see from this list, of the fourteen that have served as President, only one was elected twice: Richard Nixon. But as we famously know, he did not complete his second term, having resigned in 1974. Richard Nixon is also the only former Vice President to not be elected President from Vice President. All others who ascended to President, either on election or Constitutional ascension, either only finished out the term or served only one additional term.

So with the selection of Paul Ryan as his Vice Presidential running mate, has Mitt Romney consigned him to obscurity? Well not necessarily. One need look no further than Sarah Palin to see that. But Paul Ryan may now have been consigned to political obscurity, in that after serving as Vice President – presuming he is elected – Paul Ryan may never serve in another elected office again – through history only eight were elected to public office after serving as Vice President1John Calhoun, John Breckinridge, Hannibal Hamlin, Andrew Johnson, Alben Barkley, and Hubert Humphrey served as US Senator. Richard Johnson served in the Kentucky House of Representatives. Levi Morton served as Governor of New York..

But while the Vice President is serving, he is politically obscure. The Vice President has almost no power under the Constitution. He is superior to the Secretary of Defense in the military chain of command, but inferior to the President of the United States. He is the presiding officer of the Senate and may cast a tie-breaking vote in the Senate if necessary. But in the Executive Branch, he has little political influence and no political power except what the President happens to grant him.

In other words, Paul Ryan has now become little more than Mitt Romney’s political arm candy for the remainder of this election cycle. Mitt Romney has his own agenda that he wants to see brought into fruition. Anyone who believes in any way that he’ll allow Paul Ryan to influence that agenda is sorely mistaken, especially since what Ryan wants and what the Republican Party wants differ in some key ways, and Romney will likely only stick to the party platform.

And anyone who believes things will get better under a Mitt Romney presidency is also sorely mistaken.

References[+]

Second Amendment

Second Amendment and the Militia

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States says:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Many anti-gun proponents like to say the purpose of the Second Amendment is to say that the absolute right to guns is to be only for the military or militia. What they forget is two things. First, those who drafted the Bill of Rights would not have intended to secure the right to keep firearms only to those in the military – i.e. people carrying out the government’s violent intentions. That would’ve nullified any gains in liberty secured by the shedding of blood during the American Revolution in a heartbeat. Plain and simple the drafters of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights intended the People to be as free as can possibly be with a government still existing.

Second, there’s this segment from the United States Code:

  1. The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
  2. The classes of the militia are—
    1. the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
    2. the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

This would be 10 USC § 311 2461The statute was moved from § 311 to § 246 with the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017.. Title 10 of the United States Code lays out the laws and some regulations regarding the Armed Forces of the United States, of which the organized and unorganized militia is a part. If the military should fail to defend this country, that responsibility falls on the People.

In other words, one cannot rely purely on the government for the protection of their rights and the rights of their friends and family. Instead you must be ready, willing and able to stand up in defense of your own rights should the time come in which you must. That is the essence of the Second Amendment – one can never rely on the government to defend their rights.

References[+]

Espresso

Relieving some pressure

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 1 Comment

Update (2023-01-29): Let me shortcut this article by pointing you to this item: 51mm bottomless portafilter with basket. Or if you want one with a wooden handle, go here.

After much searching around and research, I purchased a De’Longhi EC155 espresso maker. Now this espresso maker is certainly quite good for a little machine, but there are some limitations on it. For an espresso maker that can be had for $100 or less, depending on retailer, this is no surprise. It has a single boiler, a pressurized portafilter, and a frothing aid on its steam pipe.

Any person who has been making espresso for a while or has done significant research on it knows that these limitations are true limitations in making espresso as you don’t have a lot of control in how things go. I’ve had my machine for a couple months (as of the time of this writing) and I’m now finding these limitations to be frustrations.

To get true control over the espresso, you need a machine with a non-pressurized portafilter, a tamper and a good grinder. But the least expensive espresso makers that come with a non-pressurized portafilter option that I could find are in the Saeco Via Venezia line, which retail for about triple the price of the EC155. There must be a better option.

So I read around and found that owners were substituting the basket in the portafilter with that from another model. Typically, if you read around on the EC155, you’ll find that the most common “mod” seems to be switching the basket for De’Longhi part no. 607706, which is the basket from the BAR12 espresso maker (long discontinued), and they’re turning their portafilters “bottomless”. Which this would be a great option… if you could actually get ahold of that part. But I searched around numerous web sites and couldn’t find it. Even attempting to order it from De’Longhi resulted in it being “backordered”. (Update: It’s available through Amazon, but wasn’t when this article first ran.)

So in reading around further, there was another basket mentioned: the 51mm portafilter basket for the La Pavoni Millennium line. According to one thread, this basket was rumored to fit. Well, to me it is rumor no longer as the basket does fit the De’Longhi EC155 portafilter.

But there’s a caveat… This is the basket in question (picture courtesy OrphanEspresso.com):

milldoublebasket.jpg

Notice that lip around the edge?

If you own a De’Longhi machine, you know that the portafilter basket doesn’t have that lip. And, as I would discover attempting to do this, if you set the basket into the portafilter, you won’t be able to engage it into the brew head. The machine expects the basket to lay flat in the portafilter, whereas obviously the La Pavoni machines are designed for the lip. So that pretty much tells you what you need to do: take a wrench or something else and flatten the edge out. It doesn’t need to be perfectly flat, but flat enough to allow you to engage the portafilter into the brew head. If you have a workbench, you can probably hammer it perfectly flat.

And when you get it flat enough, the basket will fit into an unmodified portafilter and the portafilter will engage the brew head.

So how well does it work? Well recall from above that I don’t have a tamper or a grinder. I did try it with some of my preground coffee that I buy and grind at my local HyVee (I buy a local roaster brand called The Roasterie), tamping as best I could on the awkward tamper on the machine, and it came out extremely fast – i.e. under 10 seconds for a double-shot (and no, I didn’t bother tasting it as I knew it’d be nasty – it had no crema at all). So before I can make use of the basket full-time I definitely need a tamper and a grinder, but at least I have a proof of concept, and that is all I was looking for at this point. I might also buy another “sump” (portafilter) and take the bottom off it so I can see how well my adjustments go as I accustom myself to the non-pressurized way of doing espresso.

So there you have it. If you want to take your pressurized portafilter and make it de-pressurized, you can buy the basket for the La Pavoni Millennium series (the 51 mm basket) and flatten out the rounded lip and voila!

Note as well that this basket will work on these machines as well: EC310BK, EC702, EC270, BAR32, and kMix DES02. It should be noted that the EC310BK, EC155 and EC702 all use the same portafilter.

You can find the basket through EspressoParts.com, Part No. MP68, or through Amazon. Previously you could find it through OrphanEspresso.com, but they have since stopped carrying the item. And Seattle Coffee Gear has been out of stock on it for as long as I can remember.

Note: Please see my follow-up to this article, originally written October 8, 2012, in which I discuss the grinder and tamper I purchased to go with this setup. I have also since upgraded the steam wand on my machine to get better results while steaming and frothing milk.

Rights

Do not confront the employees

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

I will always support a person’s natural rights, and that includes the rights to think what they want and speak their mind. I think I have made that quite clear through this blog.

In case you’ve been under a rock, Chick-Fil-A had recently come under controversy for where they were donating money, along with the fact that one of the corporation’s officers said publicly that the company is basically anti-gay. The money trail speaks out loud and clear on that fact. So then what would cause someone, particularly the Chief Financial Officer and corporate treasurer of a Tuscon, Arizona, company to berate an employee who worked at a particular franchise?

Say what you will about a company. Call them out publicly if you feel the need. But do not, do not ever confront the employees of that company. The employees are absolutely powerless with regard to the activities of their company. Even if they are aware of what the company is doing or to where they are donating money, they may still believe themselves to be powerless to leave the company for fear of not being able to find another job before money runs out – voluntarily leaving a company voids any chance of unemployment benefits.

In the case of Chick-Fil-A, each individual location is a franchise. The franchises are independent of the corporation. If a corporation is donating money to causes with which you disagree, then call out the corporation. If an individual franchise is doing the same, call out that franchise. Use your power and natural right of speech against the corporation or franchise.

But do not, under any circumstances, confront the employees of that corporation or franchise. If you must confront anyone at a corporation or franchise, confront only the management, and only after you have confirmed they are management.

Politics/Religion/Rights

Chick-Fil-A

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 2 Comments

An opinion is no longer merely a personal opinion when you start to put your money behind it. In the case of Chick-Fil-A, contrary to the assertions of one former-governor Mike Huckabee, it is not Dan Cathy’s personal opinion that is getting Chick-Fil-A fileted in public. Oh no, not when that company has donated millions of dollars through their charitable arm, the WinShape Foundation, to known anti-gay organizations. The paper and money trail is miles long, and Chick-Fil-A, the corporation, is complicit in every action of every organization they have helped fund, including the Family Research Council, who is designated a “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center:

To make the case that the LGBT community is a threat to American society, the FRC employs a number of “policy experts” whose “research” has allowed the FRC to be extremely active politically in shaping public debate. Its research fellows and leaders often testify before Congress and appear in the mainstream media. It also works at the grassroots level, conducting outreach to pastors in an effort to “transform the culture.”

Despite Chick-Fil-A attempting to say they don’t have an “anti-gay agenda”, again the paper and money trail begs to differ. Money talks, to borrow the oft-repeated colloquialism, and in this case, it’s shouting from the rooftops, to borrow another.

Now, this whole Chick-Fil-A thing has gotten way out of control. The company has always had a Christian foundation, and there’s nothing wrong with that. Likely half or more of the small businesses I’ve patronized here in Kansas City are the same way. But how many of those small businesses use company cash to support organizations with an anti-gay agenda? Likely none of them.

And when a company uses its charitable arm to fund organizations who bully gay teenagers, it is no longer a matter of personal opinion.

And if a corporation is going to take a staunchly anti-liberty stance, cities have the right to say, through their various zoning commissions and even through the mayor’s office, that said corporation is not welcome in that city. So have said the governments of Boston and Chicago, with likely other large cities following suit. Kansas City is not likely to be one of them, especially since here in KC most of the Chick-Fil-As are in the mostly conservative suburbs. Only two are in Kansas City, Missouri, and one is in Kansas City, Kansas.

In a way this is unfair as it is not the corporation that determines where a new Chick-Fil-A will open. You see most Chick-Fil-A locations are franchises. This means the locations are owned and operated by a separate sole proprietor or local corporation. That decision on where a new Chick-Fil-A will open is made by such proprietors and corporations. By boycotting Chick-Fil-A, the boycotters are actually harming the franchisees, not the corporation itself, which will continue to survive so long as there are franchises still open and paying their contractual obligations.

But that is not the concern. A portion of every dollar spent at the franchises goes to the corporation. And a portion of what goes to the corporation makes its way to WinShare. This means that every patron of Chick-Fil-A is complicit in what this corporation has done. And as such I cannot patron such an organization, knowing where their money has gone before and likely still is going today.

Naturally in the wake of these boycotts against the chain, Christians are rising up. And many are saying the vitriol against Chick-Fil-A is just another “battle in the war on religious freedom“, to borrow the words of Victoria Cobb of the Family Foundation, based in Richmond, Virginia. In other words, it is once again about protecting a group’s so-called right to persecute others by screaming persecution themselves. Now where have I heard that before?

As True Christians, we are called upon to marginalize other faiths or people with no faith and to scream “PERSECUTION!” when they rudely return the favor.

– Betty Bowers, America’s Best Christian!

Indeed, John Langer said this on Facebook:

UNITED WE ARE IMPACTFUL. UNITED WE ARE EFFECTUAL. UNITED WE WILL TAKE BACK THIS LOST LAND. IT’S HAPPENING PATRIOT’S. [sic] CAN’T YOU FEEL IT!!

Ah yes, because bigotry is Christian and patriotic…. Oh wait, this is the United States. Of course bigotry is patriotic. It’s part of our legacy. And rather than shed that legacy, they’d rather defend it in the name of “Christian principles”. We need to protect a majority’s right to persecute and denigrate a targeted minority, because that’s the American way! Or at least it was until the Supreme Court of the United States started doing their freakin’ job and actually defending the Fourteenth Amendment’s language. Given how much of a shortfall they’ve actually been in defending the Constitution, it’s no surprise they really dropped the ball on Obamacare.

And once again we see Christians asserting the existence of a majority without realizing that they want to take away rights from people who are not them! It seems that the idea of “God-given rights” means they determine which rights God has really given you. Do they not see their own hypocrisy? Of course not!

Now thankfully not all who identify as Christians think this way. Oh wait, I can hear it now… “they’re not true Christians!” *Facepalm*

Follow-up: Do not confront the employees

Driving

Making it home

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

It’s been said that nothing makes you more aware of your mortality than nearly meeting it.

Tonight, I met mine.

An intersection along my route home in Kansas City is Marion Park Rd and Bannister Rd. It is a T-intersection with Bannister running east-west. Along that road it isn’t uncommon for people to race the yellow and lose by a short margin. To anyone who knows that area of KC, it’s probably expected that this will happen.

Let me set up the scenario:


View Larger Map

I was sitting in the right-side left turn lane on Marion Park Road with the intent to turn west onto Bannister. Sitting at the intersection as well was a shuttle bus, sitting in the left-turn lane on Bannister intending to turn south onto Marion Park. The light turned green for me to turn and I ventured into the intersection.

A black SUV then came out of nowhere and ploughed through the intersection as if the light wasn’t even there, as if he had somehow declared ownership of the road and everyone must bow to him.

Had the light turned green only a moment sooner, my 28 year-old wife would likely tonight have been a widow. And she along with my parents would’ve been casting my ashes to the west wind.

Thankfully tonight I was instead coming home and shedding tears into my wife’ shirt, both of us thankful that I was coming through our door into her arms instead of a cop knocking on the door and she collapsing into their arms. Thankfully I could see the SUV coming while I still had the opportunity to stop. A moment sooner and I would not have as the shuttle would’ve turned the intersection blind. And given how fast that SUV was going, against my Spectra it would’ve been no contest. Without doubt I would have been killed.

And with the feeling pouring through me knowing I had come so close to death, it is one I hope to never experience again, presuming I can ever shake it.

To those who will run the red lights, plough through intersections without consideration, please do us all a favor and either relearn the rules of the road or stay the hell off the streets.

Due process/Second Amendment

Punishing the innocent

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Had I had any inkling of what would’ve occurred later in the week, I would not have posted my previous article. That isn’t the first time I’ve had interesting timing on posting articles, and thankfully it is the only time where that timing coincided with people losing their lives.

And predictably in the aftermath, there are calls for more gun control. Because if existing laws didn’t stop the mass shooting in Colorado, Virginia Tech, Columbine, and the like, then we must need more laws to prevent future mass shootings, right?

Words on a piece of paper, whether called a law or not, will not stop those intent on causing harm.

Posting a sign saying “no guns allowed” will only cause intended criminals to think “This place is an easy mark”. Indeed there have been businesses that have established themselves as “gun-free zones” that have been robbed out of business. Pass a law that restricts gun ownership, and intended criminals will bypass those laws and get ahold of the guns – just like they currently do already. More laws will not phase those already ignoring the existing ones. Instead more gun control laws only makes more marks and targets for criminals.

Further, enacting additional gun laws in response to what happened in Colorado will only be punishing the innocent gun owners for the crimes of one fanatic. How is that fair?

Most gun owners are responsible, even those that own AR-15s, AK-47s and the like. They keep their guns properly secured and only brandish them when absolutely necessary or when at a range. Most cannot fathom the idea of taking even one life, even if that life is taken in self defense. I certainly cannot imagine doing that, but if it means protecting my wife and those I love, then I’m willing to do that.

And yet it seems that when one person uses a gun to take a life in malice, *every other* gun owner must be made to pay for that singular person’s crimes with added regulations, laws and restrictions, and that is unfair to the highest degree.
In no other aspect will you find something like this. When have you been carded or submitted to a background check to buy butcher knives or matches? When have you been carded or submitted to a background check to buy lighter fluid, gasoline, rope, baseball bats and the like? Never.

And yet, along those lines, as some people have taken pseudoephedrine and used it to create methamphetamines, we have all been punished by having to submit identification to purchase any product with pseudoephedrine from behind the pharmacy counter. Laws punish the innocent and empower the criminals.

Holmes worked within the existing laws to get what he needed, and the next person will do the same, even if those laws are more restrictive, and yes, there will be a next time. Laws have not stopped mass shootings and laws will not stop mass shootings. It is folly to think otherwise.

Plus you do not have a right to police protection. When seconds count, the cops are minutes away, so how will you defend yourself if the time comes?

Crime/Firearms and Ammunition/Second Amendment

Blaming guns

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

This seems to be the point of view, I’ve noticed: if a person kills another person with a knife, the killer is blamed, but if a person kills another with a gun, the gun is blamed.

This point of view becomes even more pronounced when a person’s death is entirely accidental, but the result of a gunshot. In Independence, Missouri, a city in the Kansas City metropolitan area only about 15 minutes from where I live, a 3 year-old boy discovered a loaded handgun and pulled it out to play. Unfortunately this play turned tragic and the child shot himself and died shortly thereafter.

What is to blame in this scenario? Now one could go to the extreme and say that if guns were banned, then that gun would not have been in that home for the child to discover. That is what a friend of mine implied when she left this comment to my Facebook page:

While I feel badly for the family, the parents have only their own stupidity to blame for this. How many times do kids have to die from accidental self-shootings before people realize that it’s a bad idea to keep guns around?

Blame the gun rather than the parents who were not responsible enough to keep the gun properly locked up. It is all too convenient to blame the hazard rather than those who did not go to reasonable lengths to mitigate it. And it is blaming the hazard that has brought our society to its current point.

This was my response to my friend:

Keeping guns around isn’t a bad idea. Having children around with guns in the house that are stored loaded or improperly secured is the bad idea. Every gun owner must know how to properly store and secure their firearms.

Any responsible gun owner knows that proper storage of a firearm requires that it not be stored loaded. If the firearm is to be stored loaded, such as for home defense, it should be locked in a gun safe. A firearm is not dangerous unless pressure is applied to the trigger while a round is chambered. As I’ve heard elsewhere, the best gun safety is the one you have between your ears because no gun is idiot-proof.

If you do not know how to properly secure and store your firearm, you should not own one until you learn this. If you already own firearms, please refresh yourself on how to properly store one, especially if you intend to store the firearm loaded.

Such a notion would have prevented the death of a 33 year-old father in Indiana, who was shot by his 3 year-old son after he found the loaded handgun and, as can be implied by the news reports, decided to show his father what he had discovered. Now it’s unclear as to whether the house they were in actually belonged to the decedent, as the news reports say that he was "at the house doing some remodeling work". One thing that is clear is that someone is responsible for the improperly-secured, loaded firearm.

But lost in the flurry of stories that get published whenever someone is wrongly injured or killed from a gunshot are stories where guns save lives and prevent crimes. You don’t hear about crimes that were deterred when a lawfully-permitted concealed-carrying citizen brandished their firearm at the right time, unless that person comes forward. There are several examples of this on YouTube where individuals have posted videos describing such situations. And unless you live in an area where the incident occurred, you tend to not hear where a gun is used to defend the lives of others.

Such was the case in Phoenix where a 14 year-old boy defended his younger siblings with his parents’ handgun. The teenager was home watching his siblings when the home was invaded. He rushed his siblings upstairs to take cover and he went to get his parents handgun. When the intruder pointed a handgun at the teen, the teen discharged his weapon, nearly killing the intruder.

That case clearly displays the common statement by gun-rights supporters: "when seconds matter, the police are minutes away." The teen could have taken cover and called the police – which many anti-gun proponents were likely saying should have occurred in that case – but the teen had no way of knowing how quickly the police would have shown, and to what. It is the unknowns that gun-rights supporters point to in situations like the one demonstrated in Phoenix as a reason that guns are a good idea for home defense. Add to this the fact that the Courts have repeatedly said you do not have a right to police protection.

The teen in Phoenix knew what to do. He knew where his parents guns were and, more importantly, how to use it, especially in a time of need. And in that time of need, he neutralized the threat posed by the armed intruder.

That is the sequence: neutralize the threat, then call the police. It’s not good to call the police while the threat is still imminent and the extent of it unknown unless you have good reason to believe you will have time to dial 911 and calmly and coherently relay to the dispatcher the important information necessary to get the police to where you are. Under threat to your life and safety, would you be able to do that?

Accidental deaths from firearms are tragic, but avoidable with proper education in how to properly secure a firearm. This means you do not store a firearm loaded. If you do store it loaded, it should be locked in a safe. Remember that a firearm is only dangerous when a round is chambered and a finger is on the trigger. The idea with gun safety is to keep a finger off that trigger unless it is necessary to place one there.

A gun is a tool, and like virtually every other tool, including those you can readily buy at any hardware store, there are risks associated with them. But with proper education you can mitigate those risks. But also remember that a gun is not a threat of any kind until it is in someone’s hands. But in the right hands at the right time, it just might save your life.