Pledge of Allegiance

Focusing on the flag

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

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?

Life/Politics/Rights

They did not die defending our freedom

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

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.

Life

Kingdom

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Eventually every cat owner comes to discover that they do not own their cat, instead the cats are the rulers of the house, with taxes paid in the forms of cat food, water, and whatever time they demand of you for attention.

Life/Politics

Commentary on Memorial Day

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Mmm… Memorial Day. Allegedly this holiday, celebrated the last Monday on the calendar in the month of May each year, is where Americans take the time to remember those who have fought for the rights and freedoms that we enjoy. In practice, however, this isn’t the case. Instead most people will be observing this holiday by grilling out – weather permitting – and taking advantage of one of the numerous Memorial Day weekend sales going on.

And let’s not forget the parades, the Indianapolis 500, the Coca-Cola 600, and the Memorial Tournament golf event. There will also be the National Memorial Day Concert, which will feature a host of performances including several military music groups. Anyone know who I should contact to get the United States Marine Corps Band added to the list for next year?

It would seem that Memorial Day is another holiday whose true history has been completely lost and likely buried under propaganda, so let’s go over the history a little, shall we…

It begins on May 1, 1865, in Charleston, South Carolina. Certainly fitting that the place where the Civil War began would be the place where the first memorial observances would occur. Freedmen knew of at least 250 Union soldiers who died at the Charleston Race Course and were hastily buried in unmarked graves, so they along with teachers and missionaries gathered to honor those fallen, forgotten soldiers. This would become known as the first Decoration Day on a site now known as Hampton Park. David W. Blight observed:

African Americans invented Memorial Day in Charleston, South Carolina. What you have there is black Americans recently freed from slavery announcing to the world with their flowers, their feet, and their songs what the War had been about. What they basically were creating was the Independence Day of a Second American Revolution.

In this light I believe that Memorial Day is truly about remembering those who were forgotten, those who are unknown, those for whom we do not have tombstones next to which we can set a flag.

Like all good ideas, this one spread. In 1868 John Logan, acting as commander-in-chief of a veteran’s organization called Grand Army of the Republic, issued a proclamation stating that Decoration Day be observed nationwide. This would occur mostly in northern States on May 30 of that year, a date specifically chosen as it was not the anniversary of any battle. The name "Memorial Day" would not be used until 1882, and it was not officially declared in the United States Code until 1967, well over 100 years since its first observation, and the definition that it be on the last Monday in May took effect with the Uniform Holidays Bill in 1968, which moved Memorial Day along with three other holidays to a Monday specifically to create a three-day federal holiday weekend. Like many other days, what originally started as a privately-organized, yet nationally observed event has been turned into a Federal holiday. To those wanting to preserve the National Day of Prayer I say to take note, as the history of Memorial Day shows you do not need the government to proclaim a national day of anything if the public interest is truly there for it.

There have been sparse movements to restore the holiday to its original day of May 30. In 2002 the Veterans of Foreign Wars observed:

Changing the date merely to create three-day weekends has undermined the very meaning of the day. No doubt, this has contributed a lot to the general public’s nonchalant observance of Memorial Day.

The last year in which Memorial Day was observed on May 30 was in 2011, and it will again be observed on May 30 in 2016 under the current law.

Ironically the people who were killed are honored on the day considered to be the colloquial start of Summer (due likely to the fact that more than half of the public school districts have ended their academic years by that day) while those who survived or served the military without sustaining a battle wound or scar are honored on a day in the twilight of Autumn.

The African Americans from whom the idea of Memorial Day originated had a reason to remember the fallen and forgotten soldiers buried at what is today known as Hampton Park – the dead have since been reinterred at Beaufort National Cemetery. Though the individual service of the soldiers buried there likely was not something significant, in collective with the rest of the United States Army and the militias of the States therein, they managed to do something significant, something which even that Army’s commander in chief could not do: they brought the institution of slavery to an end. And though slavery was replaced with institutionalized, government-backed racism, it was at least the first steps on a long walk ahead.

Like the origins of Memorial Day there is much that has been forgotten, as I said likely buried by propaganda. Sociologist Robert Bellah and other scholars have observed that the United States has a "civil religion". Libertarians have referred to this as the "cult of the omnipotent State".

And the observations applicable to theistic religions have near perfect application to the civil religion of the omnipotent State, including the ignorance of and disregard for reality.

In this regard, many have forgotten that we are stewards, not owners, of the freedom secured by the shedding of blood on battlefields from 1775 to 1783. That freedom has not suffered a threat from external sources or forces since 1941, specifically the attack on Pearl Harbor. In response to that attack the United States engaged in legitimate hostilities against the Empire of Japan and responded to additional declarations of war by Germany and Italy with additional military force while assisting allies in Europe.

Each death in the United States military during active hostilities from Vietnam onward has been due to lies and propaganda on the part of the government of the United States. Our freedom is more threatened from within than it is and has ever been from without. Our freedom was not threatened nor even dented by the attacks of September 11, 2001, but has been severely compromised by the government response to that attack. Those who have perished fighting in the United States military in the theatres of Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001 have died for lies and propaganda stemming from a flip-flop Middle East foreign policy. They did not die to preserve your rights and freedom because they were not fighting the real threats to your rights and freedom.

The last to die fighting for any real external threat to your rights and freedom perished on the land and sea battlefields of the south Pacific and Europe during the course of what would be known as the Second World War. I know it is painful to actually realize, which I believe is why most are still living in the pleasant cloud of ignorance.

To be sure our military is composed of individuals meeting requirements most of us either cannot or will not attempt, performing duties of which most people passed, currently living and yet to be born will never do. This alone deserves admiration, for the accomplishments necessary to be called an honorably-discharged veteran most of us will never face. And even many of those who want to learn if they can meet those challenges will be turned away.

But it is not correct nor proper to say that individuals fighting in certain conflicts "fought and died for our freedoms", for unless they are fighting the real threats to your rights and freedoms, they were doing nothing of the sort. This is not to downplay the role of the military. Certainly not, and I do not wish to be mistaken on that part. Our military is tasked with defending the Constitution and the rights that document protects "against all enemies, foreign and domestic". But it is not correct nor proper to say the various conflicts into which our military has been engaged including and since Vietnam is in line with that task.

This Memorial Day remember those who long ago fell in the task of protecting, preserving and defending the freedoms and rights we take for granted against real external threats. Escape the disservice of propaganda and learn the real reasons your fallen loved ones actually died. Remember those who long before any of us were even born fought on battlefields to secure the freedom we enjoy.

And most of all remember that ultimately we, the People, are tasked with preserving the freedom we enjoy, for we do not own this freedom, but are merely stewards of it.

Technology

People just don’t understand technology

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

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

Wired Home Internet

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

Dedicated Cameras and Camcorders

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

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

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

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

Landline Phones

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

Slow-booting computers

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

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

Windowed Operating Systems

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

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

Hard drives

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

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

Movie theaters

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

The mouse

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

3D glasses

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

Remote controls

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

Desktops

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

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

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

Phone numbers

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

Fax machines

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

Optical discs

Here’s what he has to say:

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

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

Capitalism/Economics

Student loan smokescreen

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

Life/Politics

One question to start it all

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

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

You do? Good.

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

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

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

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

Politics

This is getting creepy…

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

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

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

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

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

Letters to politicians

Open letter to Rick Santorum

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Mr Santorum,

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

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

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

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

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

Let me repeat this: your daughter comes first.

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

A concerned citizen from the Kansas City metropolitan area

Politics/Science

Science and ideology

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

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

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

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

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

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

What prompted my speech output is this video:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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