Political arm candy

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 and the Militia

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[+]

Relieving some pressure

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.

Do not confront the employees

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.

Chick-Fil-A

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

Making it home

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.

Punishing the innocent

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?

Blaming guns

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.

Focusing on the flag

Speak to virtually any atheist in the United States and they’ll tell you that they don’t support the pledge of allegiance and find it to be a violation of the Establishment Clause, and all of that based on two simple words: “under God”. In fact whenever any atheist discusses the pledge of allegiance, that is their singular focus: “under God”. Why focus on just those two words? I don’t understand it.

Why focus on just the two words and not on the fact that the Federal government has entered into the United States Code specific speech and a method of rendering it?

Now the pledge of allegiance is not an oath of any kind. The Federal government must, under the requirements of the Constitution, define an oath of office to be rendered by every person who enters the employ of the Federal government or the military, but the pledge is not part of that. In fact no person is required at any time under any Federal law or regulation to recite the pledge of allegiance. The flag code (Title 4 of the United States Code) does not define any criminal statute, nor is there any criminal statute (Title 18 of the United States Code) that specifies penalties for not reciting the pledge. The reason for this is quite simple: the First Amendment.

My problem with the pledge of allegiance concerns its target: the flag. “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America”. Let’s look into this a little.

We are all familiar with the current design of the flag:

But how did it receive its current design? If you look at 4 USC §§ 1, 2, you will see that the flag is defined by ordinary legislation:

The flag of the United States shall be thirteen horizontal stripes, alternate red and white; and the union of the flag shall be forty-eight stars, white in a blue field.

On the admission of a new State into the Union one star shall be added to the union of the flag; and such addition shall take effect on the fourth day of July then next succeeding such admission.

The President establishes by executive order the exact design specification of the flag fitting the general statutory description. The current specification of the flag is provided by Executive Order 10834, enacted shortly after Hawaii was admitted as a State, with the current design of the flag taking effect on July 4, 1960.

But again the flag is defined by a mere act of Congress, a simple statute. In about every State, if not every State, the flag is also defined by statute or regulation and can change. Some States have had more than one flag across their history. Georgia is a clear example on that one, having had multiple flags across its history. Georgia even has a pledge of allegiance as well (O.C.G.A. 50-3-2), adopted by statute in 1951 with revision in 1955.

Why would a State that has changed its flag design multiple times across its history have a pledge to a flag that has been the official design only since 2003 with three prior designs since the adoption of its pledge? I mean at least the United States has been somewhat consistent, only adding new stars for new States but keeping the overall design the same. That is with the exception of its brief flirtation with a 15-stripe flag after the admission of Vermont and Kentucky to the United States – it is this design to which Francis Scott Key wrote his infamous composition that has since been adopted as the national anthem.

And Georgia clearly shows the fallacy in pledging allegiance to a flag. When pledging allegiance to a flag, you are pledging allegiance to the sitting government, since it is the sitting government that adopts and changes the design of the flag any time they see fit.

There isn’t much stopping Congress from adopting a  new official flag of the United States – perhaps a new flag for each sitting President? Again the President can change the exact specification of the flag by executive order, meaning the President could adopt a union design that writes his likeness into the blue union with 50 white stars if so desired. Would you then be reciting the pledge of allegiance if that were to occur, since according to those who vehemently defend the pledge, pledging allegiance to the flag is a show of patriotism and support for the ideals of our Founders? If no, why not?

As the flag of the United States cannot represent anything other than the government that adopted its design, how is pledging allegiance to the flag not pledging allegiance to the United States government? And why, for God’s sake, would any well-meaning person who refers to him or herself as an American pledge allegiance to the Federal government or any State government therein?

They did not die defending our freedom

In the days before Facebook when e-mail was the more common form of communication around the Internet, there existed a type of e-mail that did wonders in destroying the collective psyche of everyone who fell pray to its psychological torture. It seems the “No true Scotsman” fallacy is alive and well and in full swing with regard to “likes” and “shares” on Facebook, wherein if you don’t “like” something and/or don’t “share” it, then you’re not a true American or a true patriot.

This is, of course, the Facebook manifestation of e-mails that carried similar messages. If you don’t forward that e-mail to everyone in your address book, then you don’t really care about the topic of the e-mail, or you don’t really appreciate the “sacrifice” our troops have made for “our freedom”. The most recent manifestation of this that I’ve seen on Facebook is this:

I see two problems with this picture and the message next to it: 1. The message is factually incorrect in its implication, and 2. the sentiment or “patriotism” is empty. Allow me to explain and hopefully I can drive my point home.

How many likes for these heroes who died for our country?

Keep scrolling if you don’t care…

Well I guess I don’t care, as I didn’t put my Facebook “seal of approval” on it by “like”-ing it. Oh well. The world isn’t going to end and the United States isn’t going to falter because I didn’t do that. And actually “like”-ing it won’t make me any more of a patriot than anyone else, nor will refusing to “like” it make me any less of one. So if you’re feeling like you’re more “patriotic” than those who didn’t “like” that picture on Facebook, then the stench of your arrogance is overwhelming.

And that is one of the central issues with things like that. It shows how well people have become indoctrinated into the “USA! USA!” bullshit. Calling our fallen “heroes” and saying “they died for your freedoms” seems to tie ideas of Christianity in with our government. I wonder how many people have noticed the parallel: “Jesus died for your sins so you can go to Heaven” versus “Our fallen heroes died for your freedom fighting for your rights so you can be FREE”. It’s almost like my liberties are under constant threat from external sources, and that is certainly not true. I wonder what other parallels exist with regard to this. No wonder people have called patriotism a “civil religion”.

The sentiment above is certainly right in that those fallen “heroes” died for this country, but not in a way many would like to think. They didn’t die defending anything except an interventionist, flip-flop Middle East foreign policy – a continuation of this country’s modus operandi extending back to the early 1950s. They aren’t heroes by any stretch of the word, not unless you twist and distort the definition, which has been happening far too often over the last decade. They weren’t fighting to defend the Constitution, our rights and freedoms because our freedom was never under threat, at least not by the people our military is actively attacking.

And spare me the many canned responses you might say in response to this. I’ve already heard it all, everything from “You don’t truly understand the freedom we enjoy” to “You should live in an oppressive regime, then you’ll really understand what our troops are fighting for” and some things that I’d rather not reproduce here. And let’s not forget the many variations on “Love it or leave it”. And arguably the most frustrating are the many variations of “You don’t appreciate the military and the troops and the freedom they fight to defend.” As such I highly doubt anyone can come up with something original to say. When you speak out against the “cult of the omnipotent State” and how its military is exercised, those deeply indoctrinated and entrenched into the cult tend to not react very intelligently.

Dr Martin Luther King, Jr., said it best 45 years ago in a sermon he gave before Ebenezer Baptist Church, and it is perfectly relevant today:

In international conflicts, the truth is hard to come by because most nations are deceived about themselves. Rationalizations and the incessant search for scapegoats are the psychological cataracts that blind us to our sins. But the day has passed for superficial patriotism. He who lives with untruth lives in spiritual slavery. Freedom is still the bonus we receive for knowing the truth. “Ye shall know the truth,” says Jesus, “and the truth shall set you free.” Now, I’ve chosen to preach about the war in Vietnam because I agree with Dante, that the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis maintain their neutrality. There comes a time when silence becomes betrayal.

The truth of these words is beyond doubt, but the mission to which they call us is a most difficult one. Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their government’s policy, especially in time of war. Nor does the human spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought within one’s own bosom and in the surrounding world. Moreover, when the issues at hand seem as perplexing, as they often do in the case of this dreadful conflict, we’re always on the verge of being mesmerized by uncertainty. But we must move on.

Dr King was speaking during a time when the United States was deeply entrenched in the Vietnam conflict, and the need to fight against the spread of communism was deeply ingrained in the hearts and minds of Americans. Opposing the American involvement in Vietnam was not popular, despite the fact that the war was only growing less popular with each passing year and increasing American involvement. Unfortunately Dr King would not live to see the war come to the dreadful end it reached with the fall of Saigon in September 1975.

Later in that speech, Dr King said words that I feel are the most pertinent still today:

It is time for all people of conscience to call upon America to come back home. Come home, America. Omar Khayyam is right: “The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on.” I call on Washington today. I call on every man and woman of good will all over America today. I call on the young men of America who must make a choice today to take a stand on this issue. Tomorrow may be too late. The book may close. And don’t let anybody make you think that God chose America as his divine, messianic force to be a sort of policeman of the whole world. God has a way of standing before the nations with judgment, and it seems that I can hear God saying to America, “You’re too arrogant! And if you don’t change your ways, I will rise up and break the backbone of your power, and I’ll place it in the hands of a nation that doesn’t even know my name. Be still and know that I’m God.”

Yet many today, mostly in the impassioned, indoctrinated American conservative right-wing, are convinced that America is a messianic force for God. They see these wars as a religious wars, Christianity versus Islam, and they’ve bought into the rhetoric so deeply and have become so convinced that Muslims hate America because of the freedoms and rights guaranteed by our Constitution. Except this overwhelming blanket statement is not true when used as an explanation for the attacks of 9/11. And actually I’d say it isn’t true at all.

I find it interesting how when one Representative from the State of Texas proposed during a debate that the United States adopt the Golden Rule with regard to our foreign policy, he was booed and shouted down! Why is this? Because of the conservative rhetoric promoted with a passion by the Republican Party.

As I wrote in my Memorial Day commentary, the several thousand dead military personnel did not die for this country, did not die protecting your rights and freedoms. They died because bullies only get more aggressive when their victims have the audacity to fight back. Our government is the bully. The military is only a fist — a fist armed to the teeth with massive ordnance and, let us not forget, nuclear weapons. When will you realize this?

Republicans and their backers and supporters talk about ramping up our foreign excursions and interventions, including using a nuclear strike as the solution to a problem *the United States set in motion*. The United States has been the common denominator in all of the issues in the Middle East and conservatives have the audacity to blame Islam for our troubles! Oh no sir, no madam, Islam is not to blame. Islam is merely a catalyst. We are to blame.

The question is whether the rest of the United States will realize this and break out of their spell of cultish patriotism before it’s too late, with a complementary question being whether it is already too late.