Censorship/Life/Politics

Words of a politician

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

One thing that I feel is rather telling is how Republicans and social conservatives are reacting in a rather predictable fashion to revelations of things that Obama has said when he presumed the conversation was private. The question that springs to mind is simply this — what kind of ill-worded statements originating from President Bush’s or any Republican or social conservative’s lips disappeared into history without being recorded in some fashion? What kind of personality revelations could have been made for which the evidence supporting such revelations is now forever lost?

The various reactions make it seem like Republicans and conservatives view themselves as favored among the people and their representatives favored among all who have been elected, like they hold some special place. “How dare the President speak ill of Republicans?” is the underlying question among the various statements and comments. And how arrogant of the conservatives and Republicans who, even if unspoken or unrealized, hold such a thought in their mind.

And yes, before you comment, I realize that Democrats have held similar views, but it seems much more pronounced with Republicans and conservatives for some reason.

The President, like every other politician in every government in the United States and beyond, has strong feelings about various things and ideas, and he will, from time to time, voice those opinions. Speaking in impolite and unkind words toward the competition and opposition is nothing new. Far from it. And conservatives and Republicans are certainly not above that. How dare they hold a “holier than thou” complex when it comes to such language and choice of words. Remember the reaction to Biden’s “f-bomb”?

What I would like to see the President do, however, is voice those opinions openly instead of in a private conversation. Bring his feelings, as strong as they might be, out into the genuine open instead of holding back and providing a charismatic front with abridged and choice statements. And it’s a challenge I’ll gladly issue to any politician, regardless of political affiliation or lack thereof.

If I were to run for an elected office, my hope would be that I would have the courage and conviction to speak my true thoughts on a matter, though in a somewhat collected and comprehensible manner, mind you, instead of resorting to talking points and bickering. And if I were a Congressman or Senator, or even President (perish that thought!), I would want to be able to speak my true mind and use my typical language — including all manners of vulgarities and epithets — if my true feelings on a matter drive me to do so, but without fear of political repercussions with my constituents.

And if I were to do such a thing, you know the press would be all over my manner of argument instead of the argument itself.

However it would not surprise me if a politician willing to use such language instead of holding back on their words would favor better among a constituency against an opponent who feels he must tone down his language and must reserve his true words for private conversation. His constituency has every right to hear his true words on a matter, however, his constituency has no right to judge his fitness for office based purely on the words he chooses. So allow me to start.

Both the Democrats and Republicans need to be absolutely honest with the American people about how red the ink actually is with regard to the country’s finances. Then, they need to get their fucking act together and come up with a plan that will correct the problem within a predictable time frame. We’re talking about a $14 trillion debt. That isn’t going away overnight, but we cannot allow it to continue to grow. Politicians of all calibers need to grow some fucking balls, tell it like it is, and stop talking down to us like we’re all infantile, inbred, unintelligent peons.

And further, the American people need to stop reacting like infantile, inbred, unintelligent peons whenever the government says that they cannot have what they want.

Yes I’m dropping the “f-bomb”, but it’s my blog and if I want to use the word “fuck” or any other vulgarity or epithet here, then I will. I reserve the right to use whatever language I so choose to get my point across. I’d like to see the President use such language in the State of the Union address. Will that ever happen? Unlikely, but what a breath of fresh air in politics it would be if that were to happen. Let’s see Senators and Representatives use it on the floor of their respective houses. They get heated in debates, I understand that, but they are still reserved in their language? Why? Why be reserved when you can be honest?

Fuck those who say that we must be reserved in our language “for the good of the children”. And fuck those politicians who choose to be reserved in their language instead of speaking their true feelings to avoid “upsetting the community”. Let’s see a politician with enough backbone to say how they truly feel, out in public where everyone can hear it, with all the glorious vulgarities and epithets they so choose, so long as they present their arguments in an otherwise clear and comprehensible manner.

Immigration/Republican platform

Birthright citizenship

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Let’s talk birthright citizenship. The concept comes from the Fourteenth Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside

Citizenship by birth is conferred upon the newly born under two policies: jus soli and jus sanguinis. The first means "right of the soil", citizenship by place of birth. The second means "right of the blood", citizenship determined by the citizenship of your parents. The first makes determining citizenship rather easy. The second, on the other hand, not so much, because of potential conflicts with birthright citizenship laws in other countries.

The problem with the latter has been especially noted between the United States and Canada, wherein patients in Canadian hospitals experiencing a difficult childbirth could be transferred to a hospital in the United States for better emergency care. The child then born in an American hospital is a citizen of the United States under the Constitution, but there is also a competing declaration of citizenship under Canadian law because the child was born to Canadian citizens in a foreign country. This problem has created a phenomenon known as "Lost Canadians".1Lost Canadians. (2011, March 29). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 21:31, April 10, 2011, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lost_Canadians&oldid=421318808

The same is true of a child born to United States citizens in Canada. For example a woman who has progressed about 7 1/2 months through a pregnancy is travelling in Canada when she experiences unexpected complications requiring admission to a local Canadian hospital. There the attending physicians determine that an early delivery must be performed to ensure the best chance of the infant surviving. To maximize this chance, the physicians highly stress against attempting to transfer to a hospital in the United States. The pregnancy is delivered in a Canadian hospital. Under Canadian law, the child is a Canadian citizen. Under US law, the child may also be an American citizen.

The United States Code establishes several definitions by which a person born outside of the United States is still a citizen of the United States under the concept of jus sanguinis.28 USC 1401(c)38 USC 1401(d)48 USC 1401(g) An orphaned child under the age of five years discovered within the United States is also presumed to have been born within the United States, and thus a natural-born jus soli citizen, unless evidence obtained and presented prior to the individual’s twenty-first birthday can show that the child was not born in the United States.58 USC 1401(f)

Then we have what has been called an "anchor baby".

Now conservatives would like to "restrict" birthright citizenship as a way to counter illegal immigration because of so-called "anchor babies". It is the fallacy behind this idea6Anchor baby. (2011, April 9). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 19:44, April 10, 2011, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anchor_baby&oldid=423219740 that has resulted in numerous attempts at the Senate and House of Representatives to restrict birthright citizenship by amending the United States Code. That’s right, they want to restrict something defined by the Constitution by passing a law: the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011.

Now before getting into this particular law, let’s provide some clarification. The Fourteenth Amendment states a minimum subset of the population of the world that are citizens of the United States: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". This is jus soli citizenship, as explained earlier, and Federal law implements this definition in the United States Code78 USC 1401(a). But the Constitution provides Congress the power to "establish a uniform rule of naturalization"8Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 8, which includes the ability to declare who else beyond the minimum definition established by the Constitution may also be citizens. And, as described earlier, Congress has implemented additional definitions beyond the minimum definition of the Constitution.

But of those persons born in the United States, Congress cannot restrict their citizenship or their ability to assert citizenship. Can they be deported to the countries of their parents? Representative Duncan D. Hunter (R-CA) would like to think so.9Frumin, Ben. (28 April, 2010). "GOPer: I Support Deporting American Citizens Whose Parents Are Illegal Immigrants". Talking Points Memo. And there are reports that this is actually occurring, where natural born citizens of the United States are being deported. One case that gained some notoriety is that of Helen Mejia-Perez, born in Novato, California, in 1996.10"Tell President Obama and Senator Feinstein to immediately halt the deportation of the Mejia-Perez family" posted November 3, 2009, to the blog NYSYLC.

The question for some reason seems to surround "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Here’s a simple question: who is "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States? The answer is just as simple: anyone within the jurisdiction of the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States except those specifically exempted. So by deporting United States citizens, you remove them from the jurisdiction of the United States. The question of whether this is legal is still up for debate. Many contend that deporting citizens, regardless of the immigration status of their parents, is illegal, and I join that opinion.

Let’s throw out a hypothetical, but first let’s fast forward a couple years. Prince William and Princess Katherine are traveling through the United States while the Princess is pregnant with their first child. She’s coming close to her due-date, but they feel they still have plenty of opportunity to travel for a regalia in the United States before going back to London. The baby, however, decides to surprise them and Katherine goes into labor early and gives birth at an American hospital. Is that child a citizen of the United States? No. The reason is quite obvious: as diplomatic guests to the United States, William and Katherine would have diplomatic immunity, and this immunity is automatically conferred upon any children they have, whether born in the United States or not. That diplomatic immunity also means the child is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and cannot be declared a citizen of the United States unless the child emigrates and is naturalized.

Representative Steve King of Iowa and Senator David Vitter of Louisiana want to redefine the applicability of the jurisdiction phrase through the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011, introduced as HR 140 and S 723 respectively. This is a law seeking to redefine a phrase present in the Constitution and mirrored by the US Code. Basically what the law seeks to do is say, in essence, that a person is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, in terms of the Citizenship Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment, only if "the person was born in the United States of parents, one of whom is":

  1. a citizen or national of the United States;
  2. an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States whose residence is in the United States; or
  3. an alien performing active service in the armed forces (as defined in section 101 of title 10, United States Code).

Basically through an ordinary statute, Congressman King and Senator Vitter seek to redefine a phrase in the Constitution. Now this isn’t the first time such an attempt has been made, and, as can be readily assumed, all prior attempts have failed. But even if it were to succeed, and be signed into law by the President, something tells me that this would not withstand Court scrutiny. After all, if you want to redefine the Constitution, you refine the Constitution through an Amendment.

If you were born in the United States to parents who are not immune to the jurisdiction of the United States, you are a citizen. If you want to limit the applicability of birthright citizenship with regard to children of illegal immigrants, you basically have to grant all illegal immigrants immunity from the laws of the United States and all jurisdictions therein. Imagine the chaos such a notion would create.

The Supreme Court of the United States clarified birthright citizenship in the 1898 case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649:

A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution

While the text of the decision is written in terms of a child of Chinese immigrants, it applies easily to any person in the United States. The words "permanent domicile" are especially important, as this basically means that the child has to be born to parents who intend to stay in the United States, but note that nowhere in the decision is any distinction made about the immigration status of the parents.

In Perkins v. Elg, 307 US 325 (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that a child born to foreign nationals in the United States is a natural born citizen of the United States. That child does not lose his/her US citizenship if removed from the United States by his/her parents provided that upon reaching the age of majority the person returns to the United States to assert their citizenship and assume its duties. This means that in the aforementioned case of Helen Mejia-Perez, Helen can, upon reaching the age of majority, return to the United States and assert her citizenship as a natural-born citizen of the United States.

Oddly enough, Senator Vitter has also introduced a Senate Joint Resolution calling for amending the Constitution to clarify the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.11112th Congress, Senate Joint Resolution 2 So Senator Vitter understands that an ordinary statute may not do the trick. The language of the proposed amendment, currently stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee, mirrors the language of the Birthright Citizenship Act which he recently introduced in the Senate.

An Amendment to the Constitution is the proper path to clarify birthright citizenship, and the most recently proposed amendment will restrict jus soli citizenship in very clear terms while not overriding the jus sanguinis citizenship that the United States Code currently permits. It will mean that Canadian pregnant women transferred to American hospitals will give birth to children who will not automatically have American citizenship. And it will mean that children born to illegal immigrants will not automatically have citizenship in the United States, but absent jus sanguinis laws of the country where the child’s parents originated, may instead be born without country.

References[+]

Politics

Legalization = condonation?

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

There was a point in time wherein the idea of arguing for the repeal of criminal sanctions for actions was laughable. After all, in a free country like the United States, why should we argue for something to be made legal? Shouldn’t the argument focus on why something should be outlawed?

Along these lines, conservatives and the Republican Party are *not*, repeat, NOT for small government and never have been. Enacting criminal laws means that people will end up in jail. There is a lot of cost to enforcing laws, from the arrest, to the trial and sentencing, to maintaining the prison population. Democrats want to take your money and redistribute it to people of lesser fortunes instead of helping them break their dependence on government handouts, or spend it on pointless, wasteful government programs. Republicans want to take your money so they can lock people up.

But I digress.

Whenever the argument regarding legalization of anything comes up, one of the first things that gets shouted in response is along the lines of this: if we legalize [insert ill here], we’re sending a signal to society that it’s okay to do that. The “legalization = condonation” argument is rather typical of social conservatives. Christian conservatives like to argue against the legalization of a lot of things and the criminalization of even more things by citing some odd reference to God, as if the criminal laws of the United States must reflect laws in the Bible or the United States will be utterly annihilated in a torrent of fire and brimstone reflective of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in the Old Testament.

The one thing that’s rather interesting about this as well is that conservatives say they are for personal liberty, yet they argue against the legalization or for the criminalization of many things using societal arguments. I’m sorry, but you cannot stand for personal liberty and use arguments scoped to society to argue for the enactment or continuation of criminal sanctions. When someone starts scoping their arguments to society at large, personal liberty will almost always be restricted in the name of “protecting society”. Rarely is this a good thing.

Now is legalizing something the same as condoning it? Hardly.

To understand this better, let’s first look at dictionary definition of “condone”, from Dictionary.com1condone. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged.:

–verb (used with object), -doned, -don·ing.

  1. to disregard or overlook (something illegal, objectionable, or the like).
  2. to give tacit approval to
  3. to pardon or forgive (an offense); excuse.

Let us first look at the first and third definitions in this list. By removing criminal sanctions, are we disregarding or overlooking that which was previously criminal? Hardly. Are we pardoning or forgiving it, excusing it? Look at the pro-life movement to see the answer to that question with regard to abortion.

However by removing criminal sanctions, are we giving “tacit approval” to that which was previously criminal? No. Again, one need look no further than those who call for bans on cigarettes, abortion, and all kinds of things which are, at least as of the time of this writing, legal.

Instead by removing criminal sanctions, the People, by way of the government, recognize that the proper course of action regarding certain actions is not the criminal process. Legalizing something does not mean you are going to sit by and let something continue to happen. It just means you won’t throw someone in jail for doing it.

Ask yourself this: should someone who smokes a joint at the end of the day before going to bed be thrown in jail? What about an unmarried man (or woman, for that matter) who solicits the services of a prostitute? Should they really be thrown in jail? Is that really the best course of action? Can you think of anything else that is currently illegal that just makes you go “why does the government even care”?

The government need not, and should not, be involved in all aspects of life and human behavior.

Along the same lines of the “legalization = condonation” argument is this: “You just want it legal so you can do it”. Aside from illicit substances, prostitution is one area where this argument tends to surface with the vigor capable of lifting a steamship. Arguments against the legalization of prostitution are, in most cases, absolutely shallow. For example, women calling for legalizing prostitution may be asked by men (predominantly) and women how much they would charge for sex or certain sex services. This is the “you want it legal so you can do it” argument at its highest level of disgust, because it presumes that women want prostitution to be legal so they can become prostitutes without fear of being arrested. While some might, it is highly unlikely that all women who want to see prostitution legal want to do it themselves.

The response to men calling for the legalization of prostitution is beyond insulting. I’ve personally been told that I want prostitution to be legal so I can “buy a woman”, “objectify women”, and the statements only get worse from there. The absolute worst, most shallow and disgusting argument I have ever heard is this: “so you want to pay a woman so you can rape her?” That’s right, there are people (both men and women) who think that prostitution is “consensual rape”. That’s right: consensual rape, consenting to rape. You can find some of these people on YouTube. Their arguments really are quite disgusting.

The one thing about the arguments against legalized prostitution is simply that people presume that no woman (or man) would ever want to do that, and any who do did not enter the trade of their own free will. Yet there are plenty of women (and men) who are in the sex trade — prostitution, pornography, and the like — because (and I know this may be hard to believe) they genuinely like it.

One person on YouTube has gone to greater lengths than really should be necessary to argue in favor of legalizing prostitution: xxxThePeachxxx. She’s created a three-part series of videos (embedded below) about prostitution and why it should be legal. I invite and recommend you watch all three if you’ve never seen them before as she is really quite thorough in her approach.

Now there are all kinds of things that are illegal today that really aren’t any of society’s or the government’s business. This includes, but is certainly not limited to:

  • adultery — oh yes, in some States you can be arrested for cheating on your spouse
  • fornication — apparently in some States it’s illegal to consent to sex if you’re not married
  • prostitution — fuck for free and you’re fine (presuming the absence of fornication laws), but as soon as money changes hands it’s a crime
  • sodomy2This is not limited to homosexual penile-anal penetration between two men. Many States classify sodomy as any sexual act other than penile-vaginal penetration, such as oral sex and anal sex. In some States, such as the Commonwealth of Virginia, such acts may be punishable as a felony.
  • recreational and medicinal use of illicit substances, such as marijuana
  • gambling (both online and offline)
  • purchasing various items on Sundays
  • “obscene” materials, including pornography and erotic literature

and the list can go on and on and on and on and on… Ask yourself this question: for the items on this list, is it really any of your business or the business of the government if I or anyone else, whether you know them or not, engages in these activities? Absolutely not.

Instead the only argument that can really be made for making these particular actions illegal is that “it’s better for society to criminalize them”. Give me a break.

You don’t have to approve of these actions to legalize them. Instead what you have to understand is the proper role of government. The government is not supposed to be in the business of handing down morality upon the people. Instead the government is supposed to be in the business of being out of everybody’s way so we can do what we want so long as we are not violating anyone else’s rights.

And be wary whenever someone says that a certain law should be passed “because it’s good for society”. This argument can be made for damn-near anything, and anyone who tries to make that kind of argument is, much more often than not, talking about enacting a law that will infringe on your liberties.

References[+]

Life/Marriage and Relationships

Standards of commitment

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

I have friends who are both married and not. I have a friend who, last year, divorced her husband after he abandoned her. Let me ask this one question of everyone out there: who sets the standard of what shows commitment? There seems to be some unwritten, unpublished, but oft-quoted standard of what demonstrates commitment, and if, typically, the guy falls short, then he’s not actually committed.

Here are some of the things I’ve come across:

  • He’s not committed to you until he actually marries you, but
  • If the couple chooses to elope, or one of the couple wants to elope, there isn’t actually any commitment
  • If he doesn’t spend the equivalent of two (or three) month’s wages or salary (before or after taxes and deductions?) on an engagement ring, then he’s not really committed to you

and now, the latest one I’ve heard that comes from Prince William’s latest decision:

  • If he doesn’t wear a wedding ring, or stops wearing one, he’s not committed to the marriage

Ugh…

So someone, please, tell me who in the hell came up with any of these "standards" of showing commitment. I would really like to know so I can sit them down and set them straight. I wrote earlier on the fallacy of marriage being necessary to prove commitment (despite how many marriages each year ending in divorce?):

For some reason, many, many women have it in the back of their minds that

Marriage = Commitment

Even if you’ve been together for years, living together for most of that time, both of you are faithful to each other and talking about your future together, without the marriage certificate and the wedding rings, somehow the guy is not or has not committed? Somehow I find that very, very hard to believe, and downright insulting to say the least.

When my fiancée and I do get married, it is likely that neither of us will wear our wedding rings all the time. Does that mean we are not actually committed to each other? Indeed plenty of married couples who are perfectly committed to each other don’t wear their wedding rings all the time. Actually the last time I wore my wedding ring (I’ve worn one periodically since getting engaged) I think was when I had an in-person job interview about 2 1/2 years ago.

And after we are married, if I were to walk out of the apartment without the ring on my finger, she won’t worry or wonder if I’m fully committed or faithful. She trusts me and knows I will be faithful to her.

Now some do allow for an exception depending on profession. Not everyone is able to wear their wedding rings all the time because it would be dangerous to do so, and certain workplaces may require that the workers remove all jewelry: rings, bracelets, wristwatches, and necklaces or neck chains. Along those lines, certain hobbies that people undertake may not permit the wearing of jewelry or certain articles of clothing. For example my father likes to make things in his spare time and has a workshop on his farm. I hope he takes off his wedding ring before he starts working out there to avoid the possibility of it having to be cut off his finger. After all, safety first.

Let me put it this way, the ring doesn’t automatically mean the person is committed to the marriage. The sheer number of divorces per year should be a clear indication of this. And absent necessity for certain circumstances, if a married person chooses to not wear a wedding ring, it does not mean they are not committed to the marriage. The ring is, in my opinion, immaterial and is just another cultural relic from times past. It is not a commitment litmus test.

There are a lot of ways to show commitment within a marriage or relationship, but the oft-quoted standards don’t quite fit that bill. So what does?

While oft times it’s quite subjective and sometimes hard to pin down, I feel one thing above everything else shows commitment: the willingness to be honest. And I don’t mean honest to a degree, I mean completely honest. Now it is reasonable to withhold some information from your significant other so long as you are not being willfully dishonest. It is not necessary or practical to inform your significant other of everything, but you should not and cannot be willfully dishonest or deceitful if you are questioned about something. In general you need to be honest with each other about damn near everything, even if that honesty may provide for hurt feelings.

The glue that keeps relationships together is trust, and there is no agent better at dissolving that glue than dishonesty and deceit. And this applies to married and non-married relationships equally.

After all, as I’ve said before, there is nothing special about marriage. Marriage is nothing more than a legal status on your relationship that is recognized by the government. You can be committed without being married and you can be married without being committed to each other. Marriage does not make one committed, and neither do the oft-quoted standards.

Trust and honesty is what allows people to commit and stay committed. It doesn’t take a ring or a marriage certificate. All it takes is trust and the willingness to be honest.

Life/Technology

Gadgets you can keep

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Recently the New York Times ran an article by Sam Grobart called “Gadgets You Can Get Rid Of (or Not)” in which he severely downplays the usefulness of many gadgets still available, even if their demand is waning. In some cases he’s right, but let’s wait till the end to tally his score.

1. Desktop computer

He says: Lose it.

I say: Wait a second…

When you are deciding on a computer for your own personal use, evaluate all options available against what you need. For most people, it can be a toss-up between a laptop or a desktop. However if you are going to be doing any kind of video editing, spring for a desktop. If you’re going to be editing large images (such as from a >8 megapixel digital camera) spring for a desktop — the larger monitors that are available will make it a lot easier, and desktops have a lot more power to them.

What about games? If you’re a gamer, you already know that nothing beats a desktop computer, not even the consoles. Most hard-core gamers custom build their own systems, which brings up one major benefit of desktops over laptops: almost limitless upgradability. For most people this won’t be a major consideration, though.

Now if you need to be able to use a computer on the road, the laptop is pretty much your only option there. Laptops also generally use less power than desktops, though many desktop systems are rather energy-efficient, but they tend to also be inhibited system. Definitely shop around, though.

2. High speed Internet at home

He says: Keep it.

I say: Keep it.

You should definitely keep high speed Internet access at home even if you have access to the Internet through your mobile phone. The reason is simple: cellular and wireless signals are notoriously inconsistent and unreliable. Having a wired high-speed option coming to your home, either by cable or DSL, will save you a ton of headaches in the long run.

Plus if you get a wireless data card for your laptop, make sure to read the fine print on the contract: what is unlimited for your cellular phone may not be for the data card. Want to tether your cell phone to your laptop? That may cost extra too.

3. Cable TV

He says: Depends.

I say: Depends

My fiancée and I get away very well not having any premium television service coming into our living room. We are perfectly content waiting until shows appear online or on DVD to watch them. We don’t even connect an antenna to our television. You, however, may feel differently, so choose accordingly.

4. Point-and-shoot camera

He says: Lose it.

I say: Wait a sec…

Point and shoot cameras still have a lot of power and capability, and will always provide photo quality better than that of camera phones. Okay, much better than that of camera phones. If you actually care about photo quality, explore the P&S and SLR options available to find one that you feel suits you the best. Personally I have a Nikon D40 DSLR camera, and it’s not going anywhere.

Now while he does make a good point when he says that your point and shoot may not be handy when a photo op arises, are those ops the kind of moments where you will be planning ahead for quality pictures? If you’re going to be at a family gathering, will you be relying on your cell phone or a dedicated point and shoot or DSLR camera?

And to say that point and shoot cameras aren’t much better than cell phone cameras is just plain ignorance on his part. I’ve seen the differences and I’ve yet to see a phone camera that comes close to the level of quality you can get with a point and shoot, and none of them come even close to a DSLR.

5. Camcorder

He says: Lose it

I say: Not so fast…

Sam seems to think that the DSLR cameras available today can substitute well for a camcorder, but he also seems to think that you’re made of money. The DSLR cameras that are actually worth it that also shoot good HD video have 4 digits to their price tag before the decimal, yet you can get a good quality HD camcorder for around $300 to $400, possibly less, depending on where you go. Add on top the fact that a good quality point and shoot camera can be had for less than $200. Explore your options, of which your cell phone isn’t one of them.

6. USB Thumb drive

He says: Lose it

I say: Keep plenty of them

Once again a person not familiar with technology, or who hasn’t been familiar with it for long, is bringing up the cloud. And the cloud is a great resource: being able to store files online and access them from any Internet-ready device is a great convenience. But before you consider getting rid of writable DVDs, USB drives and external hard drives, here’s something to consider.

System administrators are very familiar with creating multiple points of redundancy in a system. Note this word: redundancy. When it comes to backing up personal digital affects, such as photos and documents, you want as much redundancy as possible.

First of all, online options have one very big weakness in them: the Internet connection. One may not always be available, and if one is not, you don’t have access to your files. Storing everything in the cloud exclusively requires you to relinquish immediate control of your digital property. USB drives are quick and easy destinations for small files such as copies of letters you’ve mailed and backing up your financial accounting system.

Now if you remember having to use floppy disks, you also remember this rule: never back up just once. With the reliability of today’s storage media this rule doesn’t entirely apply, but it’s still a helpful rule nonetheless, especially given that you can get a 4 GB USB thumb drive for $12, or an 8 GB drive for $20. Plus along with backing up small files quickly, you can also store digitally signed copies of a will or living will and keep them locked in a bank vault or fire-proof chest.

You will also always retain immediate access and control over your files without having to be at the mercy of a third party, passwords, and an Internet connection.

7. Digital music player

He says: Lose it (probably)

I say: Lose it

Virtually any cell phone today can play MP3s. For iTunes files you may have to… finagle things a little to convert them, but it’s doable. And virtually all phones (the iPhone being the only exception I can think of) have microSD slots on them, allowing the use of expandable media on which you can store your music collection. Don’t forget to keep backups, though.

Now I do have a 30 GB 5th generation iPod I bought a little over 5 years ago and will probably be keeping around until it dies. But when that happens, it’s not getting replaced with another iPod.

8. Alarm clock

He says: Keep it

I say: Keep it

When it comes to waking up in the morning, the cell phone alarm is a great thing to have, but nothing beats a backup. Plus having to answer both your alarm clock and cell phone alarm in the morning is a good way to help get you up on time.

9. GPS Unit

He says: Lose it

I say: Not so fast

GPS has been getting better and better as the years go by, and virtually every cell phone now has a GPS unit built in. Having a GPS unit separate of the one in your cell phone can still prove to be quite convenient, especially if you’re new to smart phones and haven’t quite figured out the turn-by-turn navigation on your cell phone, which also may not work if you’re also trying to talk while you’re on the road, depending on your cell phone provider.

10. Books

He says: Keep them (except cookbooks)

I say: Keep them (no exceptions)

Digital books may be the future, but they have two significant flaws. First, once you buy an e-book, you’re stuck with it. Hardcopy books you can resell at a used book store for credit toward other books. Not all books are available electronically either.

Second, the e-reader itself is an electronic device, meaning all kinds of things can happen to it. As Sam points out, books never run out of batteries, can withstand getting wet to a much farther degree, and they can be relatively inexpensive.

Sam says to lose the cookbooks, but I say to keep those too. They’re much easier to reference and virtually everyone has experience trying to cook from one. Plus recipes you find online can be printed out and kept in recipe boxes or, if you’re so inclined, in a Moleskine Passions recipe notebook or other kind of notebook. Plus would you rather walk into a kitchen with shelves lined with cookbooks and other assorted recipe books, or one with an iPad or e-reader and few, if any, cookbooks? The cookbooks tell you you’re walking into the kitchen of someone who loves to cook, and that’s the kind of kitchen I’d like to walk into.

Life/Religion

To all Christians

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 2 Comments

To all Christians,

On March 11, 2011, about a thousand citizens of Japan lost their lives when an earthquake erupted in the floor of the Pacific, sending a tsunami cascading not only toward Japan, but also toward Hawaii. In Japan there is concern about a nuclear power plant that sustained damage due to the tsunami. Thankfully the damage was nowhere near what it could have been.

However, if you feel the need or desire to have a Jerry Falwell moment and blame the tsunami on the fact that very little of Japan is Christian, then please do us all a favor and send yourself to your maker. This tsunami could have been far worse, both on Japan and the United States. Instead of trying to be a badass Christian by saying that this tsunami is part of “God’s wrath upon the world”, please keep your mouth shut. Contribute to the solution instead of trying to make the situation worse.

I dare any Christian to walk up to any family in Japan who lost a member due to this tsunami and say: “I’m sorry for your loss, but if he were a Christian, perhaps he would’ve been spared.” When you take the Falwell stance to tragedies such as the Japan tsunami, this is essentially what you are saying. You are blaming the dead for getting killed.

So to any Christians who feel like having thoughts similar to the comments Falwell and Robertson spewed forth after Katrina, please do us all a favor and take a long walk off a short pier. The world will be much better off without you.

Feminism/Life/Marriage and Relationships

What’s in a name?

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

A man marries a woman. Traditionally she takes his last name, but some woman opt against doing this for various reasons. Who knew that the idea of a woman not taking her husband’s name could create a firestorm? Okay, perhaps it’s inevitable. After all, this is the Internet and people will argue about anything on the Internet.

On The Stir, Janelle Harris penned an article that stirred up this debate.1Harris, Janelle. (2011, February 18). “Hyphenated married name fight heats up on Facebook“. The Stir.

In the article the author is debating on hyphenating her name with her future husband’s, with her name coming first: Harris-Williams. Her fiancé is apparently not impressed, saying that by doing so says that she is “wishy-washy about [her] commitment and (gasp) that [she’s] not ready to leave [her] family and be a wife.”

So here is my question: why the insistence that the wife take the husband’s name? Why not insist the husband take the wife’s name? I think there are a bunch of people wanting to claw my eyes out for even proposing such an idea, but it does happen. In 2008 screenwriter Kris Dyer took his wife’s name Myddleton when they married.2Harris, Sarah. (2008, August 17). “‘No one understood why I took my wife’s surname’.“. The Independent. The reaction was… less than according.

In my opinion that option is more logical in an evolutionary sense. It is the female of any sexually reproductive species (with some, but not many exceptions) that determines the fate of the species itself. And in human evolution there is ample evidence to suggest that women came first, contrary to the account in Genesis… wait a sec, did I just answer my question?

In the comments to Janelle’s article on its mirror location on Yahoo! Shine, Yahoo! user blackacidevil said this:

Your boyfriend or fiancee was right to state that you obviously lack the commitment necessary for a marriage. Men give up plenty to commit to one woman, to provide for her, etc. You should perhaps try to be honored that a man that is proud of his name and heritage would love you enough to GIVE you his name.

Talk about dated thinking. First most households have two incomes, meaning both the husband and wife work. So most husbands are not providing for their wives, instead both are providing for their mutual standard of living. Plus he’s not giving her his last name. It’s presumed that she will take it and when she keeps her maiden name or hyphenates, confusion seems to erupt.

Plus as Janelle says in her article, she wants a professional career that includes a doctoral degree. That career will require she make a name for herself, so it seems reasonable that she wants to keep her maiden name in part in that respect. After all her career is going to identify her separate of her husband.

A dear friend of mine (an immigrant from the Balkans) kept her maiden name when she married – didn’t take her husband’s last name at all. I know another person who has a PhD, but appears to have kept her maiden name as well. The marriage came after the degree as well. Then we have names such as Jada Pinkett Smith and Hillary Roddham Clinton where the woman continues to use her maiden name as part of her identity, even if she legally takes her husband’s last name.

Now several commenters on both Yahoo! Shine and The Stir noted that her last name is not actually hers anyway. That name is her father’s last name. On that mark, however, as others have noted, the husband’s last name is not the husband’s last name, but the husband’s father’s last name. But even that isn’t true. Your name predates you by… a lot.

I will be getting married later this year (if the stars align properly and nothing gets in the way). My fiancée has already started using my last name when talking to people, though she doesn’t sign anything with my last name as it’s not legally her name yet. If she wanted to keep her last name, in part or in full, I would have no issue whatsoever.

The one thing that few people seem to be realizing is that the name decision is typically one-sided. A lot of men seem to think that they have control in the matter, but that is not the case. It’s the woman’s choice.

A lot of people come up with a lot of reasons why the wife should take the last name exclusively, and, you know what, they’re all full of hot air, in my opinion. If the wife wants to take the last name, then great. If she doesn’t or wants to hyphenate, why is this such a big deal? Some women have good reason to keep their maiden names, such as women with careers and reputations that existed before getting married. But even they can decide to take the husband’s last name.

In my opinion it doesn’t entirely matter either way. It’s entirely a judgment call — on her part. And guys, if you feel offended that your fiancée doesn’t want to take your last name or wants to hyphenate, get over it.

Note: Please read my follow-ups to this article “Revisiting the practice of the wife taking the husband’s surname” and “Playing the marriage name game“

References[+]

Life

Aiming at the wrong target

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Imagine this scenario: you own a restaurant a couple blocks from the police station. It proves popular with the police department as well, and officers are frequent patrons. Then one night the police arrest one of your friends. You take issue with the arrest, and to protest it, you decide that the police are not welcome so long as they hold your friend in custody.

What do you think will happen? Will the police cave in and release your friend, or will your restaurant take a serious financial hit to the point where you’ll either reverse the policy or go out of business?

If you think the police would give in, you’re mistaken, yet that seems to be on the mind of one business owner in the Seattle-Tacoma area. Except instead of the police, the patrons are employees of the Transportation Security Administration. She seems to believe that by not allowing TSA members to patron her business that the TSA will change its policy.

Somehow I doubt that’s going to happen. Instead she’s just going to lose business. When one sacrifices one’s livelihood to prove a point, you neither prove your point nor have a livelihood.

Direct your anger at the source of the policy, not those whose job it is to take the policy and put it into practice. Taking your frustrations out on the TSA agents is like venting your frustrations about police during a police stop – an unwise idea to say the least. I’d like to see this business owner walk into an airport security checkpoint and mouth off to the TSA – I wonder at what amount the judge would set bail?

The one thing that everyone needs to bear in mind is that if you have a beef with the government, agents of the government are not the people to whom you should be venting your frustration or on whom you should be taking out your animosity. They are powerless. They must enforce the policy or they risk losing their job.

Mouthing off to police because they arrested a friend of yours will only get yourself arrested. Mouthing off or accosting TSA agents because you don’t like the policies they have little choice but to enforce will probably also land you in Federal court. Say your friend ends their lengthy unemployment streak by taking a job with the TSA? What then? Do you turn away their patronage at your restaurant? Make an exception?

If you have a problem with a particular policy, then avoid situations in which the policy becomes applicable and mouth off to your elected official – keeping it somewhat civil to avoid your words being misinterpreted as something else.

Your elected officials have the power to act on a policy. The lowly officer in the location where you encounter them does not. And turning away willingly paying customers simply because of who happens to employ them is a foolish decision. If a business owner were to turn away everyone who works for a company, organization, or agency with whom they disagree, they’d be out of business in no time.

Abortion

Are you really pro-life?

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

A friend of mine from my youth provided a link to an interesting, and somewhat refreshing, blog post by a pro-life Christian:

Link — In Faith and In Purity: Are we really Pro-life?

In it the author, Valerie, points out some of the hypocrisy in the pro-life movement and tries to resolve the hypocrisy down to a central point. I’ll do my best to explain what I feel that point is herein, and Valerie, if you believe I have misinterpreted what you have said, feel free to provide a clarification.

The way she points out the hypocrisy that is seen in the pro-life movement is through a mock conversation. In this conversation, a pro-life woman protesting outside an abortion clinic verbally confronts a pregnant woman before she goes in. In the conversation it is revealed that the Christian pro-life protester is married, relatively well-off, has two kids, and to keep from having more children, her husband had a vasectomy. In response, the woman seeking an abortion says this:

So your [sic] telling ME, a non believer, with no husband, no money, and no house, I should trust in "God" to provide for me when it comes to children, and to welcome that unwanted child into my life with open arms because God loves children. And YOU a Christian who trusts in the God I do not know, who has a husband, and money and a home, and a car that works, wont even DARE let the chance of conception happen because your so scared of having more.

And Valerie is right that this is a display of hypocrisy. But how is it hypocrisy?

It comes down to two things: stating that God should be the decision maker in whether a child is conceived and born, and employing artificial methods to prevent pregnancy. Any contraceptive method can be seen as acting in conflict with God’s alleged plan for you. Even the rhythm method can be seen as this as well because you are purposefully ignoring your own innate instincts until such a time as the chance of conception is at its lowest.

This is especially pertinent given the language that was used in the argument. The woman says "we decided our family was complete", implying it was only the husband and wife. Did they pray on it? If they did, it wasn’t mentioned so we have to assume that they did not. As God wasn’t consulted, their actions could be seen as contrary to God’s plan because God wasn’t given the chance to provide any indication that He decided their family was complete.

Could the confrontation have gone differently in such a way that does not seem hypocritical? Maybe.

In response to the question "Is that all [the children] you plan to have?" the protester could have responded simply with "Yes, that is all we plan to have". Is there any implication of hypocrisy in that statement? Certainly not. The question was answered. But the pregnant woman could still reveal the hypocrisy of the protester with two questions: "Are you and your husband still sexually active?" and "What measures do you take to prevent pregnancy?"

The answer to the first question would be "Yes", and responding to the second question truthfully would reveal the hypocrisy and place the conversation back where we left it. The hypocrisy is out in the open, and the protester again looks foolish.

Now how could the hypocrisy have been avoided at all? This I think is the question that Valerie should have explored as it leads to the true answer to the question of whether you are really pro-life. Let us explore this.

Instead of the black and white "Choose life. Trust God." argument the protester was stating, the focus really needs to be on providing help. "Well turning them to God is helping them," I can already feel running through the minds of Christians reading this. And if you’re thinking that, you are missing the point.

In about 3 of 4 abortions, financial difficulties were given as the reason the woman was terminating the pregnancy — she just didn’t feel she could afford to raise the child.

Here we have an unwed, single, impoverished, pregnant atheist. Instead of engaging her only to say "Choose life. Trust God", you could instead say, "Let me hand you a business card to a private charity who can help you get whatever you need." And if you were to try to direct this woman to a charity that would try to proselytize to her, she may end up back at the clinic.

If she still says she doesn’t want the child, an alternative could be "Let me set you up with a lawyer who can help you arrange for an adoption when the child is born." You could also include in the argument that many couples looking to adopt children from unwed pregnant impoverished women also help cover prenatal medical expenses, in some cases in full.

Find a way to respond to their concerns regarding the pregnancy and you may be able to talk them into continuing to carry it.

I am pro-choice. The decision regarding an abortion is ultimately between a woman and her physician. However if the woman has expressed interest in obtaining an abortion, then within reason others can try to talk her out of that and toward other options. However this should occur without mentioning God, Christianity, or Christian principles because that has a remarkable capability of turning people off, in which case you’re only going to lose the argument and the chance to talk a woman out of an abortion.

As painful as it may be for you, if you want to convince women to not obtain an abortion, you need to leave God at the door. Bringing God into the argument will only cause you to be perceived as an older sibling getting daddy to back you up in a bid to get them into trouble. And if you want to successfully turn women away from abortion, that is not the impression to be giving.

So let’s get back to the question of whether you are really pro-life.

First let me ask you this: do you really think, in the bottom of your heart and in the depths of your soul, that protesting and proselytizing outside an abortion clinic is really helping to turn lots of women away from the clinics? To the best of my knowledge there is no unbiased evidence suggesting this. So protesting outside a clinic isn’t doing any good, especially if all you’re doing is shouting and proselytizing. ("Trust God. Choose life. Abortion is murder! You’re going to regret this!")

So if in your bid to curtail abortions you employ means that have no demonstrable evidence of obtaining the ends you seek, are you actually pro-life? If what you are doing is having little to no demonstrable effect on the incidence of abortions, in the United States or abroad, are you actually pro-life?

Valerie says this toward the end of her blog post:

BUT AT LEAST now I can say honestly to any woman who asks, I am pro-life. I will welcome any child God chooses to give me. And if you choose not to raise your child, I will gladly welcome that child into my home also.

She believes she could honestly say she is pro-life because her husband had his vasectomy reversed, despite there being an apparent irreversible negative effect on her husband’s fertility courtesy of the vasectomy. But even with him seeking the vasectomy, could she still have said she is pro-life without looking like a hypocrite?

Yes.

I volunteered as a counselor/client advocate at a crisis pregnancy resource center and all the while, my hope was that I could encourage, love on, and bring hope in the name of Christ to some of these hurting women.

While the actual effect of crisis pregnancy centers on the incidence of abortions in the United States is dreadfully difficult to measure, I would be lying if I said they had no impact. They are set up to help people. Some are established with the secondary purpose of proselytizing, but they are there in an attempt to give women an alternative.

Valerie took an active, peaceful role in turning women away from abortion, therefore she is pro-life. It is all in how you try to combat the incidence of abortion that makes you pro-life. Do you proselytize and preach, standing around holding signs and shouting, or do you actually try to help the women who are in need?

Are you really pro-life?

Capitalism/Driving/Libertarianism/Second Amendment

Self regulation

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

One of the primary principles of libertarianism, and also capitalism, is the idea of self regulation: people will naturally want to find a way to co-exist that is peaceful and cooperative. One of the more interesting aspects of self regulation is how this can occur, automatically, without law or law enforcement.

Both Democrats and Republicans are for big government. Do not be fooled by the Republican rhetoric — they are not for small government. Never have been, and never will be. And how can I say that? Quite simple: they do not like the way people self regulate.

The one example that is commonly used about why we need laws is actually the clearest example of why we do not: traffic.

For anyone who commutes on a regular basis, such as to work every morning and night, it becomes quite easy to see how the people can and do regulate themselves. This regulation on the road can be called a traffic pattern. The drivers of the individual cars will adjust their speed and driving behavior in such a way that people can get to their destination without being killed.

It is actually those who try to evade this self regulation that end up in car accidents, and it is the possibility of this consequence that brings people into regulation. Again all of this happens relatively automatically and without any signals or communication between the drivers on the road, and more importantly without law enforcement trying to regulate traffic.

When you introduce law enforcement into the mix, you interrupt this regulation in surprising ways because now instead of getting into a car accident, the drivers have a secondary fear that is more immediately conscious: the traffic citation. Introduce law enforcement into a well and self-regulated traffic pattern and you see a disruption of that regulation.

It is actually for this reason that, contrary to what many people believe, law enforcement will only look for outliers when it comes to traffic violations: people trying to speed through traffic or those driving erratically. Those who are trying to evade that self-regulation, or actively inhibit or impede it, are the ones who get pulled over, or worse.

On a grander scale with capitalism we have the idea of self-regulating markets. Yes markets can, and often do, regulate themselves without the "help" of the government. And like with law enforcement and the traffic pattern, when government tries to regulate a market beyond the normal definition of regulation, those markets are impeded, and at times in striking ways.

Now I said "beyond the normal definition of regulation", so what do I mean? Regulation in its natural sense means one thing only: to make regular. What many people have come to believe "regulate" means includes not only making regular, but restriction.

Proper government regulation is little more than the establishment of standards and processes: defining the monetary unit along with standard units of weights and measures, defining certain kinds of bank accounts, and establishing processes. The original idea of regulation at the Federal level was to establish minimum or uniform standards of trade and operation between the several States.

The idea that regulation includes restriction is a little far fetched. Let’s take one example: purchasing a handgun.

To purchase a handgun, there are certain legal restrictions you must meet: must be 21 years old or older, cannot have been convicted of a felony, and various other restrictions. As part of the need to enforce these restrictions, the Federal government has established various regulations on the process of purchasing a firearm. You cannot just walk in and buy a gun. There’s a process to follow first, just like there are processes for purchasing other items like cars and houses.

The minimum standard established by the Federal government requires only one thing: a background check performed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). This process is regulated as well, but not heavily. Unlike your taxes, purchasing a firearm requires only one form: ATF Form 4473. And on that form the purchaser only fills out the first page. The seller fills out the rest.

It’s not a painful process either. I went through it myself about 5 months ago when I purchased my handgun. My resident State of Missouri follows only the minimum Federal standard and does not enact any additional regulations or restrictions on the purchase and sale of firearms. Your State may differ, so check with local gun shops or local law enforcement for details.

Now regulation can be, and often is, a product of restriction. The restriction implies the regulation of verifying the restriction is not applicable. For alcohol, ammunition, and tobacco purchases, there is an age restriction, implying a regulation on the sale for checking the age of the purchaser.

But let’s say there were no restrictions or regulations on the purchase of a firearm. You could freely walk into any gun store and walk out with a handgun (after laying down several hundred dollars, mind you). Would this result in a populace armed to the teeth where people will be killing others in cold blood just for sport, as some gun control advocates seem to imply?

No.

This goes back to the notion of self regulation. Even before massive regulations and restrictions were enacted on the purchase and sale of firearms, people weren’t killing others for sport. There were a couple reasons for this, with the primary reason being that guns were (and still are) expensive items, so they weren’t being bought up to the point where the entire populace could fight an intergalactic war and win.

But there’s another reason that is far more fundamental: all actions have consequences. And consequences have one hell of a way of keeping people in line.

Those who do use firearms to rack up a huge frag count are not the norm, something that people seem to conveniently forget when there is a mass shooting, such as the recent assassination attempt of Congresswomen Gabrielle Giffords that resulted in the death of a Federal court judge and a 9 year-old girl.

Virtually all of society is self-regulating and not in need of government and law enforcement. The fact that people follow the law voluntarily without cops swarming the streets and invading every aspect of your life to ensure you’re complying with arcane and mundane laws you didn’t realize exist proves that people are self-regulating. And when government intervenes in such a way that interferes with this self regulation, it causes strife within the community.

Less regulation from the government is always best because self regulation is always better than government regulation. Self regulation is blind, unconscious. Government regulation is direct, focused, conscious and deliberate, with questionable motivations that always impedes on personal liberty and individual freedom.