Constitution

Amending the Constitution, revisited

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Many people are frustrated at Congress. To this end it is no surprise that people have proposed amending the Constitution of the United States. I mean, why not? The Constitution even provides for an amendment process that, in essence, bypasses Congress, so additional limitations could be placed on Congress without having to even ask Congress to consider the idea first.

Amending the Constitution, however, is not something to be considered lightly or haphazardly. Nor is it something you should be persuaded into supporting with catchy language and tear-inducing images, such as the image of a scar-faced Marine in dress uniform:

422931_3109088563967_1023380413_n.jpg

With this image is this proposed text for an amendment to the Constitution:

Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States.

There are several problems with this idea, chief among them being that people who propose amending the Constitution to satisfy their immediate urges for justice never seem to think beyond what is in their mind. The same could easily be said of those proposing to amend the Constitution to give Congress the ability to override the Supreme Court of the United States – anyone proposing such an idea needs to study Supreme Court jurisprudence to understand what would also be on the chopping block with such a power in the Constitution.

But let’s consider the language above of the newly proposed idea. What exactly is wrong with it? I mean it seems like such a good idea, doesn’t it? Well let’s take a look.

1. Use of the word “citizen”

This is the chief concern, the chief problem with this idea. The word “citizen” is used very infrequently in the rest of the Constitution, and with good reason: the initial architects of the Constitution wanted to ensure that the language of the Constitution was used to limit the government and not the people – yet it’s rather interesting how many conservatives want to amend the Constitution to do just that, but I digress.

So first and foremost, the words “citizens of the United States” must be replaced with “person” – i.e. “Congress shall make no law that applies to any person that does not equally apply to the Senators and/or Representatives”. But that, still, would not push me toward supporting this amendment.

2. The idea such an amendment is necessary

The chief issue with saying that Congress shall not do something is to imply they had that ability in the first place. Indeed this was the justification that Alexander Hamilton made in Federalist No. 84 against a bill of rights, such as what we currently have amended to the Constitution:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.

By amending the Constitution to say that Congress shall not pass laws that do not apply equally to itself than to the people implies that Congress had such a power to do such a thing at all. You see, they never had such a power. Even the Supreme Court has said continually that the Federal government is one of enumerated powers. Sure they’ve tended to allow broad strokes in interpreting what those powers allow, but they still at least recognize the precept.

In short what that means is that unless the Constitution specifically and explicitly grants a power to Congress, there is no power to exercise. So despite having a Bill of Rights against the judgment provided by Alexander Hamilton above, the Tenth Amendment is at least there to reiterate the notion that only the powers granted to the Federal government may be exercised.

And the only laws that Congress can pass that don’t apply to the citizenry at large are laws regarding the compensation of those working for the Federal government and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. But then these are powers explicitly granted to Congress.

3. It won’t meet the ends sought

The proposed amendment obviously seeks two ends: to force the applicability of “Obamacare” to members of Congress, and to force Congress to take a more “fair” pension.

We can all agree the pensions are considered part of compensation for services. You don’t perform the service, you’re not eligible for the pension. And under the Constitution, such compensations for services are to be defined by law, but that no raise in compensation may take effect until after the next elections for Representatives – i.e. a pay raise passed in 2012 won’t take effect until 2013.

Any law regarding the compensation given to Senators and Representatives has no applicability to the citizenry. So if Congress cannot make any law “that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States”, how then can Congress make an act declaring what the requisite compensation for their services shall be?

In short, they can’t.

Now this could be good or bad. This would mean that the current level of compensation provided by law would remain static should such an amendment such as the one proposed above be passed. So as cost of living for those serving in Congress continues to rise, and it’ll rise faster than for the citizenry at large, they won’t receive any increase in compensation to help cover this cost.

Knowing this will serve to dissuade many valuable individuals from pursuing campaigns for the House and Senate. Those who will be so dissuaded are those who could not afford to serve in Congress due to the lack of compensation for services. In other words the cost of exercising their duties and obligations would be greater than their annual income after taxes.

This means that only those left to serve in Congress are those who don’t need the money. In short we would find ourselves represented by a rich, powerful elite. In short, little would change from present day, but things would only get worse in the long run.

If the aim is to merely ensure that Congress does not receive a pension that is better than any provided to those retired from the military, better language can be selected:

No compensation to be provided to Senators and Representatives after the end of their service shall be of greater quality than given to any person after the end of any service in the Armed Forces of the United States.

If the aim is to ensure that benefits in addition to salaries are no better than what is seen in the private sector, better language can be selected:

All compensation for services provided to Senators and Representatives during the terms of their services shall be only in the form of a salary or wage and shall not include any benefits in addition.

These proposed ideas keep the language contained to just compensation instead of providing for language far broader than is necessary. If you’re going to amend the Constitution, the language must be strict and contained rather than wide and broad. Only in certain circumstances has the language of any particular amendment to the Constitution been wide and broad, such as that of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

But then the question needs to be asked:

Why amend the Constitution?

Amending the Constitution is intentionally difficult. Not impossible, but definitely difficult. This is why out of several hundred amendments considered by Congress, only 33 total have been proposed to the States, with only 27 having been ratified. The difficult process was intended to allow only the most critical amendments to actually be ratified.

This amendment is not necessary.

And it is bound to have more far-reaching consequences than even I have already foreseen.

Amending the Constitution is no small matter. Now there are issues that can be easily addressed by amending the Constitution, such as legally-sanctioned voter discrimination (Amendments XVI, XIX, and XXIV). The issue attempting to be addressed with the herein-discussed proposal, however, is not one of them.

The lessons demonstrated with the fallout behind the Eighteenth Amendment still have not been learned by a large majority of the populace: complicated issues require more work than simply shortcutting to amending the Constitution. The consequences of the amendment’s enactment need to be accounted, meaning one cannot be shortsighted in considering the idea, and one must consider all alternatives before considering proposing amending the Constitution.

Because once the amendment is ratified and enacted, it’s even more difficult to go back to the previous state of affairs.

That alone should always give a person pause whenever the idea of amending the Constitution, regardless of reason or ends sought, is raised.

Politics

Apologizing to our veterans

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Another Veteran’s Day has come upon us. Many people around the country will be making their various symbolic displays of cultish patriotism while belittling anyone who doesn’t feel bothered to do so. Given how many times attempts to belittle me have been made, I’m kind of numb to it at this point.

It’s actually quite sad that a lot of people constantly exhibit the charade that without our military we wouldn’t have our liberties, and that isn’t true.

For one, we don’t really have our liberties anyway. Our government seems intent on taking them from us whenever it is deemed convenient, and as the late George Carlin said, “rights aren’t rights if someone can take ’em away”. So what have our veterans allegedly defended, and why, then, should we really be thanking them for anything?

Chief on the list of atrocities of this nature occurred in 1942 when the Federal government rounded up tens of thousands of Japanese-Americans and put them in concentration camps. George Takei was arguably the most famous victim of this atrocity. Natural born and naturalized citizens were detained against their will by government officers under Executive Order 9066. Sure the government eventually released them, but the fact they were rounded up at all is the atrocity. No due process, no lawyers, no nothing. No ability to appeal their detention in a Court of Law, no habeas corpus rights. Nothing. Their rights were stripped until the government decided they could have them back.

So again, what exactly have our veterans defended? The Constitution? Please… The military isn’t defending anything except our government and their military adventurist foreign policy.

Second, how can we say that our military has defended our freedom when our freedom has never been under threat by any particular state or force our military has openly attacked since the Second World War? Our liberties have always been under greater threat from within than from without. If you want to see who is trying to take away your liberties, all you must do is just look around and look in a mirror. We are doing it to ourselves.

We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed and over-regulated and overrun by bureaucrats. The Founders would be ashamed of us for what we’re putting up with. Matter of fact, if you look at every single problem we’re facing today, it’s because of the lack of respect for the rule of law and the Constitution.

— Ron Paul, MD [R-TX(14)]

Now there is one veteran to whom I do owe a lot of thanks and plenty of gratitude: my father. And no it’s not for the vapid “If it weren’t for him I wouldn’t be alive” kind of thing. It’s far greater than that. You see my father not only got me interested in computers at a young age, he’s also been my mentor for pretty much the entirety of my professional career and before it. It is in large part because of him that I am as successful as I have become, though I haven’t always taken all of his advice.

This year is also 25 years since my father left the Navy, taking his honorable discharge in 1987 and moving on, ending an exemplary 12 years of service at the pay grade of Chief Petty Officer (E-7), to which he was promoted three or four years prior. He joined the Navy in 1975 on the tail end of the Vietnam conflict and left several months after the incident involving the USS Stark in 1987. His only regret, or at least the only one he’s voice to me, is leaving before he was eligible to wear gold stripes.

Veteran’s Day is kind of the opposite of Memorial Day. Where Memorial Day is about those who went to prosecute some mission the government of the United States deemed worthy or necessary, typically for international political reasons more than anything else, Veteran’s Day is about those who did come home, even if they didn’t do so in one piece. I noted in my Memorial Day commentary the irony of how we remember those who died at the ceremonial start of summer, while recognizing those who lived in the twilight of Autumn.

And in recognizing those who lived, we shouldn’t be thanking them.

Today, this 11th day of November, we should be apologizing to them, apologizing to every veteran who has served in Korea, Vietnam, and the various other conflicts following the Second World War. Most especially we should be apologizing to every veteran who was sent overseas to prosecute this military adventurism that has taken place under the guises and excuses of “protecting and spreading freedom and democracy”.

We have lied to our military men and women. They aren’t protecting and spreading freedom, as I’ve explained herein previously. They are prosecuting a political foreign policy that is more about securing current US interests abroad while trying to twist the rest of the world so they say “How high?” whenever we say “Jump!”

Arguably the last time the freedom and liberty we enjoy as Americans was ever under threat was during the Second World War. To those who fought in that conflict and came back home we owe a debt of gratitude that can never be repaid. We are stewards of the liberty they helped preserve.

To those who fought in Korea, Vietnam, and every conflict since, we owe one hell of an apology that can never be adequate.

Politics

You took the knife from our backs and plunged it into your chest

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

There’s a saying that you must get behind someone before you can stab them in the back. This is how the Tea Party definitely feels, I’m sure.

For those who are unaware, the Tea Party movement originated with the Libertarian Party and was championed on the heals of Ron Paul’s presidential campaign in 2008. The movement started gaining momentum in 2009 and by the end of that year, it was naming candidates and had its eyes firmly set on the GOP. From it also came the Contract From America. The GOP, no doubt, saw it as a way to vault back into power on the heals of electoral losses in 2008 as it was a movement that was embraced by people of all political persuasions.

So many conservatives and Republicans embraced the Tea Party movement. Eventually it help bring several candidates into office while helping the re-election bids of several others. Three prominent “Tea Party candidates” were Michele Bachmann, Allen West and Rand Paul. Allen West and Rand Paul were newcomers to Washington at the start of the 2011 Congressional session while Michele Bachmann secured re-election.

On the heals of the 2012 election, Allen West is staring down the barrel of the gun of electoral defeat while Michele Bachmann barely held on, winning by less than 5,000 votes. Being a Senator, Rand Paul doesn’t face an electoral challenge until 2016.

With the Tea Party providing electoral influence, the GOP had little choice but to embrace it or be subverted by it. Unfortunately their worse fear came with the Tea Party: Ron Paul. In 2010 the GOP had three Republican opponents to Ron Paul for the Republican primary, but Ron Paul handily won the nomination with over 80% of the vote, and then Paul easily won re-election with over 3 out of every 4 votes going to him. Ron Paul, Rand Paul and the other Tea Party candidates were starting to set a precedent.

In response the Republican Party embraced the Tea Party and appeared to be welcoming of its ideas. But appearances were definitely deceiving.

In 2008 Ron Paul had immense popularity around the country, even more popular than every candidate for President in the 2007-2008 election season combined. Ron Paul’s popularity crosses party and ideological boundaries. This national popularity was met with resistance within the GOP, however, and he was unable to turn that popularity into primary votes to secure the 2008 nomination, which instead went to John McCain. Paul ran on the Libertarian ticket instead.

In the 2012 primary and caucus season, Ron Paul had much better success, spurned on by the Tea Party and other grass roots efforts. Turnouts in favor of Ron Paul shocked the GOP. In response, the GOP started fudging numbers, refusing to record votes for Ron Paul on official tallies and the like. And the ultimate insult came at the GOP convention in August, in which the Republican Party openly ignored and violated its own rules and then changed them on the fly. New rules the GOP adopted will ensure that insurgencies like what occurred with Ron Paul and the Tea Party will never see the light of day in the GOP again.

What they failed to anticipate was how Ron Paul’s supporters would respond.

Arrogantly the GOP still expected that Ron Paul’s supporters would come together with the rest of the Republican base and support Mitt Romney. As we saw, this didn’t happen. To expect that it would requires ignoring the obvious, something that Republicans have apparently been doing for quite a while. Instead the support that could’ve gone to Romney was instead scattered among all of the candidates – some to Romney but likely most to Johnson and Obama, or lost to abstention.

The GOP got behind the Tea Party initially. When the prime opportunity presented itself, they then stabbed all of us in the back. Not just the Tea Party, but the entire country.

And arrogantly conservatives and the GOP are blaming those they stabbed in the back for Romney’s electoral loss. No, this was something they did to themselves. It seems the Republican electoral loss this year was very predictable to everyone but the Republican Party. And rather than take ownership of their mistakes, they’d rather shift blame to some other group, even a group that is otherwise politically powerless.

How many people did the Republicans turn away? How many would have voted for Romney that ultimately voted for Johnson, Virgil Goode, or Obama, presuming they voted at all? Obviously it was enough to keep the election in Obama’s favor.

But the one question that Republicans refuse to ask is this: did Romney ever have a chance in this election at all? If he ever did, the GOP’s actions during the primaries, caucuses and the August convention are what destroyed his chances. Not the Libertarians. Not the other “vote wasters” as we who voted third party have been called.

No, Republicans, you did this yourself.

Espresso

Upgrading the De’Longhi EC-155 steam wand

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 36 Comments

Note: This article describes how to upgrade the steam wand on the DeLonghi EC-155. This mod may work on other DeLonghi single-boiler espresso machines (EC-xxx model numbers plus the BAR32), but steps and requirements will vary. If you find an article for this mod with a specific model of DeLonghi, please leave a comment below with the link.

For the DeLonghi EC-702, Francisco over at his blog on WordPress provides the details.

For the DeLonghi EC-270/EC-271, see Ethan’s tutorial on Reddit.

If you follow this guide and make the upgrade to your machine, please consider sending a small tip as a show of appreciation. And also leave a comment below about your experience.

* * * * *

Recall from previous articles (here and here) that I changed out the portafilter basket on my De’Longhi EC-155 espresso maker from the stock pressurized basket to an unpressurized basket. Well I decided to see how much further I could upgrade it.

Along with the portafilter basket, the only thing that could really also be upgraded on the EC-155 is the steam wand. The EC-155 comes stock with a frothing aid on a short steam pipe (see below). The frothing aid works quite well once you become adept with it, but it does limit how well you could steam or froth milk with the espresso machine.

ec155_frothing.jpg

To get around this, some people have just modified the frothing aid by cutting the skirt off it, leaving just the plastic tip. I’ve heard mixed reviews on this option, too. Good thing replacing the frothing aid doesn’t cost much as it’s just a molded piece of plastic, so if you’re going to do this, I definitely recommend buying a spare. (Amazon, eReplacementParts)

Another option that I did try that didn’t work well is replacing the frothing aid with a different tip. Namely I used a single-hole tip sold by Orphan Espresso. As this tip is shorter than the frothing aid, it actually takes ½” off the length of the steam pipe. On a 20oz pitcher this just won’t do. And on a 12oz pitcher you still might have issues getting the tip deep enough into the milk to get a good swirl going. I do not recommend trying this as I don’t see being able to use it effectively, plus you need to use plumber’s tape to get an effective seal, which I don’t want plumber’s tape anywhere near the milk I’m going to steam.

So it seems that if you want to effectively steam milk with the EC-155, rather than settling for the frothing aid, you’re going to need to replace the entire steam pipe with something better, such as the steam wand for another espresso machine, namely the Rancilio Silvia. But there’s a caveat. (Isn’t there always?) The part to obtain is a steam wand assembly for what is known as the v1 or v2 model of the Rancilio Silvia (Amazon, EspressoParts.com – the o-rings the parts page mentions will not be used, so there is no need to buy them). This is the easy part.

You will also need hose clamps that can go down to 5/8″ (I found some at Home Depot for about 90¢ US each), or zip ties that can withstand temperatures approaching, to be safe, 250°F (122°C).

Warning: Performing this upgrade will void the warranty on your EC-155. Do not perform this upgrade unless you are comfortable with this. I cannot be held responsible for you voiding your warranty, nor for any incidental or consequential damages or injuries that may result from your attempt to perform this upgrade.

Disassembling the machine

First, you will need to, obviously, remove the tank and run out the last of the water in the machine before unplugging it. The frothing aid on the steam pipe also needs to come off. And this should also go without saying, but I’ll say it anyway: ensure the machine has cooled off and is unplugged before attempting to work on it.

Next you’ll want to pop off the knob on the steam valve. It’s a friction fit, so just open it all the way and get a butter knife under it, or something like that, to pry it off. The two screws under this knob are of no concern and you can leave them in place. I think they’re for holding the “cup warmer” in place.

Next there are four long screws you’ll need to remove: two long screws on the top of the machine and two more on the front near the brew head. There’s also a small catch on the back you need to push in and release before the top will come off. Once you have all of these out and you start popping the top off, the lid that covers the water tank should come off relatively easily with it.

On the underside you have four Torx® Security T20 screws. If the post in the screw is low enough to get a standard Torx bit into the head, then go for it, but it’s best to use the proper bit, which you can acquire online or at a local retailer (such as this DEWALT bit set). I also found that a 1/8″ flat-head screw driver works as well as it can wedge nicely into the screw head to allow you to turn it – I didn’t have any Torx® Security bits available at the time I did this upgrade. Once you have the bottom off, the two hoses that connect under where the water tank goes will need to be pulled off.

With all of this loose, it’ll make it easier to pull the body of the machine out of the shell. Some will say this isn’t necessary, but trust me, it makes things a lot easier, as you’ll have the innards of the machine out in the open instead of trying to mess around in the tight spaces around the boiler.

Around the boiler there are four silver Phillips head screws and four black hex key screws (Note: hex key screws, also called Allen screws or Allen key screws, are not the same as Torx screws). Do not remove the black screws as these screws are used to keep the boiler together. Only the Phillips screws need to come out. On the front of the machine, you need to pop the knob off the dial (it’s a lot easier to get off than the steam knob) and remove the two screws under it, then maneuver the dial assembly out of the way along with the two indicator lights. With this and the four Phillips screws mentioned also removed, the innards of the espresso machine should lift out of the plastic enclosing with ease. The steam pipe is going to give you a little bit of a hitch, but it should be easily overcome, and watch for the guide on the power cable as well as it might catch on the underside.

With the innards of the machine out of the way, it should become fairly obvious what you need to do next: pry the hose clamp off the hose at the steam arm and pull the steam arm out of the end of the tubing. Some force will be needed, but it shouldn’t be too much.

Installing the new pipe

Preparing the new pipe is straightforward. If you ordered the assembly I linked above from EspressoParts.com, you will need to unscrew the tip off the steam pipe and slide the burn protector off to get the giant nut off the pipe. There’s also a small washer between the nut and a small lip on the machine-end of the pipe. That nut and washer will not be used for this.

r_1054_2_full4_2086.jpg

Next, you will need to slide the steam pipe into the end of the steam/water hose. Make sure to slide it far enough that the end of the hose goes over the lip near the end of the pipe. This will ensure you’ve got a tight fit that should not leak. And to ensure it won’t leak, use the hose clamp or zip tie to keep it snug.

Piecing the machine back together basically requires reversing the steps that took it apart. Now getting the new steam pipe through that small hole in the machine will require some work. When you attempt to do this, you’ll see what I mean.

Don’t completely reassemble the machine back to the point where you’ve got everything covered up. Leave the top lid off the machine’s enclosure. The reason should be quite obvious: testing for leaks. Doing this requires pulling water through the new steam pipe, and you can’t easily see if there are leaks if you completely reassemble the machine. If you’ve ever built a computer by hand, assembling from separate parts instead of buying a pre-built machine, you should be familiar with the cardinal rule that you don’t close up the case until you confirm everything is working properly. Similar concept here.

Along with pulling water to check for leaks, I recommend pulling steam through it as well. Now you might say that if water comes through okay then steam will, too, but this isn’t necessarily going to be true, and it’s always good to be thorough. Note: the post for the steam knob will get very hot when you turn the machine up for steaming, so be sure to account for this.

So only after you’re reasonably certain that everything is working fine, both for pulling steam and water through the new pipe, let the machine cool off (might take at least an hour), then reassemble the last of the case.

In the end…

Now that you have everything reassembled, I guess it’s time to try steaming milk. Bear in mind that using a traditional steam wand, similar to what you’ve now installed in your EC-155, requires a quite different technique for steaming milk than the frothing aid. But after you’ve practiced enough, you should be able to steam milk and get better results than you could with the frothing aid. Interestingly, you can practice steaming milk with water and dishwashing liquid.

Will you be able to do latte art with this? I don’t know, but given some of the results I’ve gotten doing this, it appears to be possible if you get everything right for it. The results really are quite phenomenal. I’ve been quite pleased, and it can handle a 20oz pitcher without any problem (just make sure you’ve got enough milk in it), but a 16oz or smaller would likely be better.

Additional resources

Note: all images used in accordance with “fair use” as provided by 17 USC §107 in the United States and applicable international treaties.

Abortion/Sex

Rebuttal to PalMD’s "I have a problem with this"

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

I’m a regular reader of the blog "White Coat Underground" and I highly recommend you subscribe and read the blog as well. It’s written and run by a physician going by the moniker "PalMD", who has made it no secret his liberal-leaning politics as well, typically voicing where politics and medicine overlap – which in today’s society, there’s a tremendous overlap, as I’ve seen personally working in the medical industry.

Recently he wrote an article called "I have a problem with this" in which he responds to New York Times columnist Nick Kristoff. Much of the article is spot-on in the point that we have a culture that "assumes that rape, abortion, and any decision that involves women’s lives and autonomy is up to men to legislate, decide, judge."

But where he deviates from this point and enters the realm of being off the mark is when he says this:

This is about women in a culture where even abortion supporters think abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare" instead of "safe, legal, and none-of-your-damned-business."

The fact that abortion numbers per year are still above the 1 million mark, despite being on an – albeit slow – downward trend for the last 20 years, is why abortion is far from "none of your damned business". The only part of the abortion decision that is "none of your damned business" is the reason behind the decision. The fact a woman (or a couple) chooses to abort a pregnancy is far from this, if for no other reason than the simple fact that it shows that people are making poor decisions. Allow me to clarify before anyone jumps down my throat about this.

I’m not calling the abortion decision itself a "poor decision". It is certainly not one. A poor decision, in my opinion, is one that is made without consideration for all consequences and alternatives that could be reasonably considered. Often poor decisions are made haphazardly, spur of the moment, spontaneously or on impulse. In the case of sexual choices and decisions, often our hormones make it difficult to actually make sound decisions, including the decision on whether to employ a condom. If inebriants come into play, there might not be an opportunity to make a sound decision. And it is also possible to be so inebriated that one does not recall consenting to sex.

The fact that over 1 million abortions occur just in the United States alone per year is a symptom of a greater problem, a problem that starts before the women obtaining these abortions are even old enough to conceive a child, let alone physically carry it to term. It is a symptom of a problem that is exacerbated in our public schools that tell our students to just abstain from sex without explaining in the necessary detail why they should abstain – it’s as if adults have taken on the fallacy of "if they don’t learn about it, they won’t do it". Which given some of the most religious States in the US are ones with the highest teen pregnancy rates, it really makes you wonder if the biggest problem of stupidity is not realizing you have it.

This is why those of us who are pro-choice, or at least not so pro-life that we want the legislatures to intervene, call for abortion to be "safe, legal, and rare". We see abortion as a symptom of a greater problem, a problem that society not only can address, but must address. However addressing the problem is not going to be easy and, in my opinion, should not involve government.

Most people who identify as pro-choice, or, again, at least not so pro-life that they want legislatures to intervene, want to see the numbers of abortions continue to decline. To do this, it is well known that education is involved. This means teaching teenagers about sex rather than avoiding the topic by just vapidly saying "wait till you’re married". This means teaching teenagers the actual facts about proper methods of contraception and how well they work, while also stating that abstinence is the only 100% guaranteed way to prevent not only pregnancy but the spread of STDs. This means also teaching teenagers about masturbation as an alternative to sex.

This basically means not lying to our children and teenagers. But unfortunately we do a lot of lying to our children and teenagers. Parents, clergy and religious leaders lie repeatedly to our children. Governments do so as well. And given that governments are operated and instituted by parents, clergy and religious leaders, this is no surprise.

The question is when we’ll stop lying to not only ourselves about the problems we face, but stop lying to the next generation about the natures of those problems and how to solve them.

Religion

Playing games

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 5 Comments

One game I’ve seen played by numerous theists against atheists is an attempt to corner atheists into admitting in some way that a deity is possible. Except if the theist were to actually listen to the assertions that atheists make, they’ll already see that most of us already do. The late Christopher Hitchens summed it up fantastically: "It may not be said that there is no god. It may be said that there is no reason to think that there is one."

As such one peculiarity about these games is how they merely get a person to concede the possibility that a deity might exist, something that again most atheists already concede, without actually showing evidence that a particular deity exists.

Typically it is Christians administering this game, and thankfully only a minority attempting to do so as it is quite a fallacious game to play, and it can be summarized as this: as each person only possesses a tiny fraction of the overall sum of knowledge available, it is possible that the God of the Bible exists within the part of the knowledge that, presumably, the atheist does not possess.

Except there is one major problem with the conclusion or concession the game tries to get the atheist to make: the God of Abraham, the God of the Bible, does not exist, as I have stated previously:

First, Christians, would you agree that without the Bible, both the Old and New Testaments, Christianity would not have any definition? In other words, much if not all of the theology behind the religion called Christianity relies on the Holy Bible. It is where the teachings and story of Jesus are recorded, and it is the basis if not sole source for the theology most often cited by Christians. Now Mormons, I am aware, also have the Book of Mormon, but that is merely an addendum to the Holy Bible, as far as I am aware, so everything for Christianity still rests on the Bible.

And in the Bible lies many problems.

Numerous scholars have written about the authoring of the Bible, including the identification of the various authors of not only the Pentateuch, but the other books of the Old and New Testament. To put it simply the Bible is riddled with numerous problems, errors, contradictions and the like. The Bible is not the work of a god, or if it is, it is certainly not an infallible God as has been declared so readily by Christians. As the Bible provides a definition of God accepted by Christians (and further defined, molded, polished and primed by apologists), and as the Bible has been shown by numerous scholars to be wrong about so many things between its covers, it is not only my opinion but the opinions of many others that the Christian God, the "God of the Bible", Yahweh, Jehovah, or whatever name you wish to ascribe to the God first mentioned in Genesis, does not exist.

Now to say that the God of the Bible does not exist is not to say that no deity exists. But the Christian says that if a deity does exist that deity must be the god of Abraham. I’ve yet to personally encounter a Christian that is willing to admit that anything different. As such by trying to get the atheist to admit the general possibility a deity might exist, the theist is, in their mind at least, attempting to get the atheist to admit that their deity exists.

Except that isn’t how it works, for two reasons.

Admitting the possibility that unicorns might exist does not automatically mean that pink unicorns with purple eyes are a genuine species that we just haven’t discovered yet. Admitting that a deity might exist is not the same as admitting that the Christian god does exist.

Further, the onus is always on the Christian to prove their religion and all its claims are true.

Religion

Atheists lacking balls

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 1 Comment

As an atheist, one thing that I tend to hear from the religious side of the equation is that atheists don’t believe in anything. And that is frustrating because atheists believe in plenty of things, just nothing supernatural. But one statement I’ve been hearing that pisses me off even more actually comes from atheists: "Atheists lack a belief in gods."

This in reality should never be uttered by an atheist. And I do mean never. Every time I hear it, I just want to cringe. Hearing this proffered countless ways by atheists in many different venues, repeated practically verbatim, I’ve got to wonder if the person who originally came up with that description lacked a lot of creativity with regard to the English language.

I mean there are so many ways to say that atheists don’t buy any of the supernatural ideas being proffered by all the various religions in the world, and that’s the phrase that keeps getting passed around like a case of VD at a Roman orgy? Come on!

Now the fingernails-on-chalkboard effect that phrase has had on me has only been growing more potent as I’ve been reinvigorating an old hobby of mine from high school: writing fiction. To anyone who sees the phrase "atheists lack a belief in god" who also has experience writing fiction, do you see the problem?

Those who take on the moniker "agnostic" (like yours truly) are often referred to by atheists as "weak atheists". To me, any atheist who says "atheists lack a belief in gods" is a weak atheist because you’re using weak language. And I hear those who refer to themselves as "strong atheists" using this weak language.

As such I propose this phrase be banned from discussions on atheism, post haste. It needs to go. Atheists need to stop using it. It is a weak statement that makes the person uttering it have the appearance of backing into a corner and cowering like a frightened mouse. Is that really the impression you want to give? More powerful and active language must be adopted:

As an Atheist I have no reason to believe the claims the religious offer, and I will not believe any of them until sufficient evidence has been provided and adequately supported against all claims to the contrary.

Powerful language that is straightforward and in the active tense and not passive like saying in a rather pissy tone, "Atheists lack a belief". Sure a lot of atheists do say something similar to what I’ve just offered, but they say the "lack" statement even more.

When discussing atheism it should not be discussed as lacking anything because it doesn’t lack anything. Instead atheists just do not believe in anything supernatural and live their lives without the spiritual slavery of the here and now and the tyranny of the here after. A more powerful connation of "lack" is "does not", a form of the transitive word to be.

To say you are lacking something means that you want or desire whatever you are lacking. The dictionary defines lack as a "deficiency or absence of something needed, desirable, or customary". For example I currently lack children. The hungry lack food. The horny lack a sexual partner or some alternative. I think you get the idea. So by saying you lack a belief in a deity or god, it seems to imply you want to believe in a deity or god. If that be the case, then go on saying you lack a belief and I’ll know how to classify you.

As to the rest of us, if you don’t want to believe in a god, deity, or theology, then stop using the word "lack" in describing your beliefs. Start using the more active tone instead of the passive, pissy tone.

Atheism is purely not believing in any supernatural or higher power. The atheist is someone who does not believe in any supernatural or higher power. Plain and simple. And that is how atheists should describe atheism, other atheists, and themselves.

Politics

Defining "equal work"

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 2 Comments

Oftentimes many will cite an alleged "pay gap" between men and women. Despite this notion having been refuted time and again, it is still proffered in time for elections as a way of spurning the female side of the electorate into voting for Democrats.

And typically Democrats will say they are for "equal pay for equal work". And as great as such a notion sounds, there is one big problem: what is "equal work"?

Let me proffer two scenarios, and I’ll borrow on my own profession – software engineering – as the example.

First scenario

Jim and Alice are software engineers on the same team at the same company.

Jim is 32, has been writing software in his spare time and professionally for about half his life and has made available several of his projects online on the Internet. He is recognized for his expertise and readily shares it as well with his team where possible. He’s been working for the company for about 5 years, and continues to work on his own projects in his spare time.

Alice is 32 and has been working for the company since graduating from college. Like Jim she also has a computer science degree, but when hired, she had little experience beyond her classes and she makes no effort toward additional learning or study in her spare time.

Jim and Alice work on the same team and contribute to the same projects working toward the same goals and ends. For the sake of argument, we’ll say they work with the same programming language and frameworks and the same tools.

Should Jim and Alice be getting paid the same? Why or why not? If no, who should be getting paid more and why?

Second scenario

Jim and Alice are software engineers on the same team at the same company.

Alice is 32, has been writing software in her spare time and professionally for about half her life and has made available several of her projects online on the Internet. He is recognized for her expertise and readily shares it as well with her team where possible. She’s been working for the company for about 5 years, and continues to work on her own projects in her spare time.

Jim is 32 and has been working for the company since graduating from college. Like Alice he also has a computer science degree, but when hired, he had little experience beyond his classes and he makes no effort toward additional learning or study in his spare time.

Jim and Alice work on the same team and contribute to the same projects working toward the same goals and ends. For the sake of argument, we’ll say they work with the same programming language and frameworks and the same tools.

Should Jim and Alice be getting paid the same? Why or why not? If no, who should be getting paid more and why?

My take

Okay this is almost a trick scenario. If you haven’t noticed, the scenarios are near mirror images of each other. In the first Jim is the far more experienced and more passionate engineer, while in the second it is Alice who is more experienced and more passionate.

The question comes down to this: should Jim and Alice be paid the same? And if you say that in the first scenario Alice should be paid the same as Jim while in the second there should be the disparity, you’ve got a lot of explaining to do.

But then it’s immaterial whether you think they should be paid the same or not. Few companies would dream of doing so for two reasons. First, it would be categorically unfair to pay a far less experienced, less passionate engineer the same as the greater experienced, more passionate colleague. Second, if it were discovered this was occurring, it wouldn’t last long as the company would risk losing the far more valuable engineer as he or she sought out a company willing to pay more.

Yet in the "equal pay for equal work" crowds, experience and expertise are often overlooked.

Further, the idea of "equal work" is a myth. Two people will not do the same job the same way. That is just reality. Even two people with similar levels of expertise and experience will differ on attitude, energy, and/or perception.

This is why individuals are paid based on the kind of value they can bring. Those who demonstrate themselves to be more valuable – such as by reducing costs and increasing efficiencies – will or should be paid more. And if the more valuable person happens to be a man, then so be it. If it’s a woman, so be that as well.

But if you’re going to advocate "equal pay for equal work", then you must first define "equal work". Until you can do that, anything you attempt to say advocating your position can be easily and readily ignored.

Politics

Endangering Big Bird?

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Mitt Romney has recently taken a bit of heat for saying that funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting should be cut. I happen to agree with that stance. The Federal government should not be in the business of subsidizing speech, as when government subsidies come into play, the speech is not truly free – as in freedom, not price.

But a lot of people seem to think that cutting funding to the CPB means that Sesame Street is in trouble. And nothing could be further from the truth.

For one, look at Planned Parenthood. When their Federal funding was threatened, private donations skyrocketed for a short period of time. If people really want to see something stick around, they’ll fund it. If Federal funding to the CPB is threatened, we could expect private donations to make up a good portion of the difference, possibly even overtake the difference. After all, it is one of the reasons the various PBS stations hold their massive telethons every year, as government subsidies do not pay all the bills.

But let’s say the "worst case" happens and PBS ends up going away as a result. Does this mean there is no home for Sesame Street? Again, hardly.

Sesame Street has been around since 1969 and is a name readily recognizable by… well… anyone. This means that if PBS were to go away, the company behind Sesame Street could probably shop the show around and have the other major broadcasters practically beating each other up competing for it because the show would be an advertising boondoggle to the channel(s) that picked it up. Nickelodeon, Discover, even ABC, CBS, NBC or Fox could pick up the show to keep it on the air channels. Again it would be a ratings and advertising "cash cow" to those networks.

Seriously, folks, if there is enough demand to keep Sesame Street around, even if PBS goes away, the money will flow to keep it around somehow. That is how private sector markets work. Sesame Street doesn’t need the government to keep it going, and the sheer amount of money likely being churned up each year in merchandising alone shows this.

Now the other shows on PBS may not fare so well, but then that is the market’s "natural selection" at work: something you cannot convince private investors to fund likely isn’t worth funding.

Espresso

Follow-up on De’Longhi EC155

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 1 Comment

Recall from an earlier post that I said a good alternative for the De’Longhi EC155 (and similar machines) for getting a non-pressurized basket is to use the basket for the La Pavoni Millennium espresso machine and flatten out the rim. Since that post was made, I’ve made a few purchases.

First is the grinder. I purchased the Breville Smart Grinder, in part because it was available through Crate & Barrel, which has a location in the Kansas City metro. It cost me almost about $15 more than ordering online due to sales taxes alone, but convenience has a price, payday had just hit when I bought it, I was about out of the pre-ground stuff I was using, and I didn’t feel like waiting for the grinder to arrive via UPS or FedEx.

The tamper came from Coffee Complements, and the basket came from Orphan Espresso. Along with this I’ve been weighing out beans as I use them rather than keeping a quantity in the hopper, and for storage I bought an AirScape from Crate & Barrel. So far results have been a lot better than before and I know I’m never going back to the pressurized portafilter. And with the AirScape and measuring out beans as I go, each shot that I’ve pulled has been about like I’ve just opened the bag of beans.

Speaking of, I’ve been using the Super Tuscan Espresso blend from The Roasterie, though I want to give their Gotham blend a try.

One thing I will say is that the coffee through the non-pressurized basket has a much, much more pronounced flavor than in the stock pressurized basket that comes with the EC155. As such my lattes have had a much stronger coffee flavor in them, something I like, but not something my wife enjoys a lot, so I just add more of the vanilla syrup in hers. And it’s also great not having the soupy pucks after each shot, making cleanup easier.

Update (2012-11-10): I’ve also since upgraded the steam wand on my machine to get better results while steaming and frothing milk.