Constitution/Marriage and Relationships/Republican platform/Supreme Court

Stripping jurisdiction from the Federal courts

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Here is an interesting question to ponder: does Congress have the power to exempt from the United States Supreme Court or Federal courts cases dealing with certain topics?

This question arises from a rather startling trend I’ve noticed within conservative circles, and that is the desire to see certain topics stripped from Federal jurisdiction, the most prominent being marriage laws. Quoting the 2008 Republican Platform (page 53):

We also urge Congress to use its Article III, Section 2 power to prevent activist federal judges from imposing upon the rest of the nation the judicial activism in Massachusetts and California.

To begin the discussion, let us evaluate Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States, beginning with the first paragraph which outlines the scope of judicial power:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

The idea that Congress can restrict the jurisdiction of the Federal courts is derived from the second paragraph of the section (emphasis added):

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

This emphasized text known as the Exceptions Clause. Now Congress cannot take jurisdiction away entirely from the Federal courts. The judicial power is strictly set out in the Constitution and Congress cannot muck with it. Where the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction a lower court must have original jurisdiction. Congress cannot usurp the judicial power by failing to provide a court of original jurisdiction, and it cannot append the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court except by way of amending the Constitution.

In other words, under Article III of the Constitution, and in accordance with the First Amendment’s protection of the right to a redress of grievances, there must always be a court of original jurisdiction for the entire scope of the judicial power, but whether there will be a court of appellate jurisdiction is entirely up to Congress.

Congress is able, by the Constitution, at any time, to take away from the Circuit Courts and the Supreme Court the ability to hear an appeal on a specific case, a range of cases, or possibly even all cases. Don’t think this can actually happen? It already has. It is known as "jurisdiction stripping".

With regard to the case Ex parte McCardle, 74 US 506 (1869), Congress stripped from the Supreme Court of the United States the ability to hear the appeal of that case while the Court was hearing and adjudicating the case. Now completely powerless, the Supreme Court was constitutionally required to throw out the appeal.

Worst still is what led to the case. William McCardle was a journalist and Sergeant in the Confederate Army. After the Civil War during Reconstruction, exercising his rights of free speech, he published literature advocating opposition to the Reconstruction laws in place at the time. He was arrested and jailed under by a military officer by authority of the Military Reconstruction Act of 1867.

McCardle invoked his right of habeas corpus. When the writ was issued, it was automatically reviewed by the Court, and the court found his military detention to be lawful. McCardle appealed to the United States Supreme Court under the Habeas Corpus Act of 1867, which granted them appellate jurisdiction of habeas petitions. Oral arguments were heard, but before the Supreme Court could render an opinion, Congress took swift action and repealed the Habeas Corpus Act, effectively removing the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction.

Powerless to act, the Supreme Court, acting unanimously, affirmed Congress’s power under Article III, Section 2, and dismissed the appeal. McCardle had no option for appealing his military detention.

Fast forward to today.

There are two lawsuits currently before United States District Courts for adjudication: the lawsuit by the Obama administration against the Arizona immigration law, and the lawsuit by several States against the Obama administration regarding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. Think about this for a moment.

Let us presume the Courts rule in favor of the Obama administration on the Arizona law. Congress, with their majorities, could act swiftly to remove from the Circuit Court and the Supreme Court the ability to hear appeals on that case. The same if the Court were to rule in favor of the Obama administration on the PPACA. This has the ability to set a dangerous precedent.

And the Republicans want Congress to do this to take away appellate review with regard to gay marriage and, likely also, abortion. Interesting how the tables can be turned against you on something a little more vital to our republic. I wonder if the Republican party is willing to withdraw from their platform the call for the exercise of Article III, Section 2. Doubtful.

Now Congress cannot take away the original jurisdiction of the Federal judiciary, and there must always be a court of original jurisdiction. But whether any Federal court will have appellate jurisdiction is up to Congress, and they can take away appellate jurisdiction for any to all cases at any time.

Energy/Life

Window films

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 1 Comment

Windmills_D1D4__Thornton_Bank.jpgI typically don’t talk much about energy efficiency. Living in an apartment, unless you can negotiate with the property management about your appliances, you typically have to take what you’ve got.

This means that the options to living more energy efficient are limited.

Now there are some cheap methods you can use to reduce how much energy you use. You’ve probably heard of them, but one of the most cost effective methods I’ve seen is weather stripping. It quite literally pays for itself in a hurry. Only about $3 worth of weather stripping can save you more than that on your energy bill, especially in the winter.

For example, I weather stripped our front door (which leads into a hallway) until it seals like a door to the space shuttle, and that alone dropped about $5 off our first energy bill for our heating system. For the apartment in which I previously lived, which had a natural gas heating system, weather stripping alone on our front door and windows cut our natural gas usage in half compared to previous years.

But what about the summer?

Shortly after moving into our current apartment, my fiancée and I purchased thermal curtains. You know the kind, heavy curtains that are all white on one side that are supposedly able to keep a room cooler than normal curtains? I’ve had mine up for a year and, let me tell you, they don’t do squat when you’re in an apartment on the top floor of an apartment building with bedroom windows facing due west.

The master bedroom and second bedroom (office) in my apartment are always ovens in the afternoon and early evening. And because the living room is shaded and on the east side of the apartment building, our living room ends up freezing cold, partly because of the weather stripped front door, but mainly because our air conditioner is working harder trying to make up for the hotter bedrooms in the afternoon.

There is one simple reason the thermal curtains weren’t doing squat: they can’t stop the heat from getting into the room in the first place. So I started looking around and came across discussions of window films. You can find it at your local Lowe’s or Home Depot. Do they work?

You need to install the window film to a cool window, so for us, we installed the film on Tuesday night into early Wednesday morning, July 13th and 14th. Again, west facing window, so it was either be up late or get up early to do this. We also only did one room, the master bedroom since it has the larger window of the two and the window was easier to access without having to move furniture.

Now one thing about the films they don’t mention, partly because it may not apply to you, is that for the first day after installing the film you may notice a difference in the way the room feels, but you might not notice a difference in your energy usage. But over time after the film cures, you should start noticing a difference, partly because the change in how the room feels will allow you to turn your A/C down to keep your home or apartment from feeling like a freezer.

So what kind of results have I seen? Well again, I’ve only filmed up one window, but the other will be taken care of soon. Now where I live we actually have a power meter on our HVAC system separate from the main power to the apartment. This makes gauging which methods work and which don’t a little easier. Plus our power company has meters that allow for daily tracking of power usage.

Now remember it was in the early morning of July 14th that we installed the film, and Thursday evening (July 15th) at about 8pm (after I got home from work) — or was it last night (July 16th)? — I turned the thermostat to a higher temperature. As you can see with this screenshot from my power company’s web site, the changes are dramatic:

energyuse.png

Wednesday was also the peak energy usage day for the month of July on kWh. I estimate that the film for both windows will have paid for itself by the end of September. Isn’t it great so see some real numbers?

HeatControl.jpgOkay so you must now be wondering: which film did we get? Gila Heat Control Platinum. You can find it at your local Lowe’s home improvement store. You can also read more about it on Gila’s web site. Home Depot sells something similar, I believe. If you have a large home, you can also have 3M come out to your house and do a professional installation of their window film products — but you can expect that to be expensive, but probably worth it in the long run.

The film itself will run you about $25 for the smallest roll, which gives you 30 square feet. The 45 square foot roll is only $30, though, so the bigger the window the better the value, but don’t buy a larger roll than you need, but do try to account for multiple windows when buying the film.

Now if you do buy this film, there is a kit that you can buy as well. Get it. It’s only $10 and it comes with several things that make installation of this a lot easier. Plus the installation instructions refer to what is in the kit multiple times. The kit comes with a solution to be sprayed on the film and the window during installation. That bottle should be enough for a 40 square foot window, so if you’re doing multiple windows, pick up a couple bottles (they’re only about $4 each).

And if you’re doing windows that are divided into multiple small panes (our master bedroom window is 24 small panes approximately 11″ x 12″ each), be prepared to spend several hours doing just that one window.

In the kit is a small cutter as well — use it to only cut the film from the roll. To cut off the excess film after you get it on the window (watch the installation videos for details), go to Office Depot or OfficeMax and spend about $5 and get an X-acto knife. Trust me, it makes cutting that film much easier.

Links

Image copyrights

Driving/Life

Drive safe out there

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

It’s become something of a reflex for me. Whenever I part company with someone, I tend to almost instinctively say “drive safe”, or something like that. I started doing that while in college, and I’ll explain why, but I want you to watch this video first if you haven’t already seen it:

http://youtu.be/0rfuwbqzEy4

Thanks to my friend Stephanie for bringing this video to my attention.

In one week back in 2004, while I was in college, I lost two acquaintances to car accidents. I lost another friend, my college roommate, actually, six months before that tragic week. Last year while I was moving stuff down, I witnessed an accident on I-35, in which thankfully no one was killed, and I see people swerving through traffic all the time in fashions similar to what this video shows.

Please, drive safe out there. I don’t like seeing crosses on the side of the road.

Abortion/Religion

Who is and is not a Christian?

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 1 Comment

My last article regarding the "No true Christian" fallacy struck a chord with a good friend of mine. I call him a good friend because I’ve known both him and his wife since we were all in college. And as friends often do, we don’t agree on everything, especially religion.

The chord I struck was the fact I was mentioning only negatives of Christianity, and the last sentence of the article drives that notion home with a golden spike:

Jesus may have preached peace, but there is no doubt that a lot of Christianity’s history is penned in blood.

One of my friend’s statements is certainly true: it isn’t Christianity that causes problems, it’s people. This is similar as the oft-quoted notion by gun rights supporters: guns don’t kill people, people kill people. People certainly cause problems and people kill people. It doesn’t matter your religion, race or creed.

Christians today certainly do a lot of good as well. There are many Christian churches and organizations that contribute billions of dollars each year to help the lesser fortunate around the globe. The Salvation Army is a classic example of Christians helping others, and many churches route tithe money to charitable causes and functions.

But that wasn’t the focus of the article, only a side point brought up for the purpose of emphasizing the main point: Christians do not decide who is and is not a Christian.

With many things it is very easy to say whether someone does or does not belong to a particular group. For example my father is a Navy veteran because he served honorably for 12 years in the United States Navy, but he is not a retired Navy veteran because he did not retire from the Navy but was only honorably discharged. I cannot say I am a veteran of any branch of the military because I never served.

Sometimes specific groups have set definitions of who is and is not a member, thus qualifying a person as a member or not becomes easy. Religious affiliation, on the other hand, isn’t so cut and dry.

Now there are specific "qualifications", if you will, that determine if a person is a Christian, but unlike proving the veteran status of a person, there isn’t anything you can go on to prove a person is or is not a Christian, only that person’s own word.

I’ll use myself as an example. I was christened in a Methodist church when I was an infant. I own a couple Bibles and a cross that my mother gave me when I was in middle school. So far it sounds like I’m a Christian, but I’m not. I explicitly disavowed myself from Christianity about 10 years ago, though one could say I "lost my Christian status" in high school.

I am not a Christian, and only I can say whether I am or am not a Christian.

Christians can distance themselves from other Christians who do harm, just like I distance myself from white supremacists. But saying

I wouldn’t refer to those who commit violent acts of murder as Christians.

doesn’t nullify a person’s Christian status. You may not want to think the person a Christian, but that doesn’t make it so.

And if you want an example of this, consider Paul Jennings Hill.

Hill is so far the only anti-abortion activist to receive the death penalty in the United States. On July 29, 1994, he shot abortion provider John Britton and his bodyguard James Barrett, killing both of them, and he also shot Barrett’s wife June, injuring but not killing her. Hill was sentenced to death on December 6, 1994, and so executed by lethal injection on September 3, 2003, in the State of Florida.

Hill was also a Presbyterian minister, though he was defrocked in 1993 following a controversial series of television appearances. He also attended Bellhaven College, a private Christian liberal arts college, and was affiliated with the Army of God.

He left behind a manifesto called Mix My Blood with the Blood of the Unborn, published online by the Army of God. His words in that manifesto leave no doubt.

Hill was a Christian, regardless of whether you want to think him one or not. You don’t get to decide, not with Paul Jennings Hill and not with anyone else.

Other resources on Paul Jennings Hill

  • Clarke County, Indiana, Prosecutor’s Office: "Hill, who had told reporters that his death would make him a ‘martyr’ in the anti-abortion movement and that he expected a ‘reward’ in Heaven, was pronounced dead from the lethal injection at 6:08 p.m. Hill became the first killer of an abortion clinic doctor to be executed." (emphasis added)
  • Life Enterprises Unlimited — Paul Jennings Hill: "His actions, known as justifiable homicide to honest believers in the Word of God, were against a murderer –Dr. John Britton– and his driver/escort/guard –James Barrett, an accomplice… He understood his unselfish defensive act –even though he had to leave behind a young wife and three young children– to be just in God’s sight."
  • Army of God — Mix My Blood with the Blood of the Unborn, Paul Jennings Hill
Abortion/Religion

No true Christian…

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing." The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing."

—Antony Flew, Thinking About Thinking (1975)

This paragraph outlines what has become known as the "No true Scotsman" fallacy. Outside the realms of fiction and more into the realms of religion, we see the "No true Christian" fallacy with statements like this:

I wouldn’t refer to those who commit violent acts of murder as Christians.1The Right Scoop. (2010, May 28). "Tavis Smiley: Christians blow up more people in America than Muslims"

and this one:

Christians who do horrible things are NOT practicing Christianity.2"Jaynie59". (2010, July 8). "Jon Stewart: We shouldn’t fear Islam any more than Christianity". [Comment in response to "chrish43".] The Right Scoop.

I think that Shelley Shannon, Michael Griffin, Scott Roeder, Paul Jennings Hill, John Salvi, Eric Robert Rudolph, James Charles Kopp, and Clayton Lee Waagner would disagree. And let’s not forget Otis O’Neal "Neal" Horsley, Jr.

That is, unless you think that what these individuals have done do not constitute "horrible things".

And let’s also not forget the organization called The Army of God, who has a famous history of violence against abortion clinics and providers, having bombed, vandalized, invaded, or set fire to hundreds of abortion clinics across the United States.

The United States also leads the world in anti-abortion violence, all of it perpetrated by Christians. You may not want to call them Christians, but they are Christians. You don’t get to decide who is and is not a Christian.

Jesus may have preached peace, but there is no doubt that a lot of Christianity’s history is penned in blood.

References[+]

Children/Law/Religion

Revisiting Kent Schaible

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Recently out of a curiosity I decided to see if I could find information on the Kent Schaible case through the court docket. The criminal trial for Herbert and Catherine Schaible is set for December 6, 2010, over which it shall be presided by Senior Judge Carolyn Engel Temin.

Docket No.: CP-51-CR-0012965-2009 and CP-51-CR-0012966-2009

Herbert and Catherine Schaible, you may recall, are the parents of 2 year-old Kent Schaible, who passed away January 24, 2009, from complications related to bacterial pneumonia after the Schaibles allegedly failed to seek proper medical attention, instead opting to pray over their child for healing from God, healing which appears to have never manifested.

It is believed that had obtained proper medical attention been sought for Kent, he would not have died but would have instead fully recovered.

Note: Herbert and Catherine Schaible are presumed innocent of all charges until it has been proven otherwise in a Court of Law.

Law/Religion/Supreme Court

God is banished from the classroom?

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Note: This discussion should be considered applicable to the United States only.

Prayers are one of the dominating themes of religion. They range from simple verbal requests to a deity to offerings, sacrifices, and ceremonies trying to win the deity’s favor or praise, or to ask that they not be vanquished in some weather phenomenon that would otherwise cause half a town to disappear.

So with prayer a theme in religion, and given the majority of individuals in the United States are some brand of theist, it is no surprise that prayer used to be present in public schools, initiated and led by teachers or school officers before being declared unconstitutional.

So what was the issue with school prayer? I mean students who did not want to participate were under no direct obligation to do so. But there’s the key word: direct. There’s the feeling of isolation and humiliation if a student does not participate. A student may be ostracized, harassed, or even physically assaulted because of differing religious beliefs.

School is a tough enough time as it is for students, both mentally and socially. With the school initiating the prayer, the feelings of isolation and humiliation are increased, and the assistance the school may provide to students not participating, should trouble arise from the non-participation, may be minimized if the school is sanctioning the activity.

And if you want proof of this, watch this video:

Schools are not places for prayer. The school should not care if a particular student is Christian or atheist, and the school should not foster an environment where tension may arise due to differences of that nature by favoring one religion.

So how was “prayer in schools” declared unconstitutional and why? Because an “activist” Supreme Court hated the idea of prayer? Because a more progressive culture was trying to eliminate God from our culture? Not quite.

To answer this question, we need to first look back to 1963. The case in question was School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania v. Schempp1374 US 203 (1963). Consolidated into this case is the one that involved Madalyn Murray O’Hair (b. 1919, d. 1995), so if you hear that “Madalyn Murray O’Hair got prayer removed from schools”, consider the phrase to be an exaggeration.

The Abington case centered around a law in Pennsylvania:

At least ten verses from the Holy Bible shall be read, without comment, at the opening of each public school on each school day. Any child shall be excused from such Bible reading, or attending such Bible reading, upon the written request of his parent or guardian.224 Pa.Stat. § 15-1516, as amended, Pub.Law 1928 (Supp. 1960) Dec. 17, 1959

In Abingdon Senior High School, the opening exercises included reciting the statutory ten bible verses, followed by a recitation of the Lord’s prayer, a flag salute or the pledge of allegiance, then the morning announcements. All of this was broadcast over the school’s intercom or, in schools that had no intercom, the morning prayer exercises were conducted by the teacher.

At the first trial in this case’s docket history, the children of the complainant testified that the practice in question ran “contrary to the religious beliefs they held, and to their familial teaching”. The trial court subsequently struck down the practice and the law compelling it, citing that attendance at the public school was compulsory under law, as were the practices required by the aforementioned statute.

The trial court called the compulsory statutory religious practices a “religious observance”, noting that the government of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania “prefers the Christian religion” and also intended to “introduce a religious ceremony into the public schools”.

Earlier still in 1947, the Supreme Court declared in Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing that the Establishment Clause means:

neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.

…

[The First Amendment] requires the state to be a neutral in its relations with groups of religious believers and nonbelievers; it does not require the state to be their adversary. State power is no more to be used so as to handicap religions than it is to favor them.3Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing, 330 US 1 at 15,18 (1947)

In its ruling in the Abington Township case, the Court further stated:

While the Free Exercise Clause clearly prohibits the use of state action to deny the rights of free exercise to anyone, it has never meant that a majority could use the machinery of the State to practice its beliefs.4374 US 203 at 226

In other words, voters can no more use the ballot box to enact laws that concern religion than can they use the legislature to the same end. Both are prohibited.

I’ve said before that the will of the majority must be tempered against the rights of the minority. We are not a democracy where the will of the majority rules always. We are a republic where the rights of all must be considered against the actions of the government, for the purpose of government is to protect the rights of all.

You will notice a common theme in all of these cases as well: the Courts have held that the government cannot compel prayer among students in public schools. This is because students are a captive audience in a public school because their presence in the public school is by mandate of law unless other options provided by law are exercised, such as home schooling.

Any religious practice by students on a public school campus should be entirely of the student’s free will and not compelled or mandated by school rules, city ordinances, or state laws. It should also be on the student’s own free time, outside the classroom such as in a study hall or, if in the classroom, in such a way that it is not disruptive to other students.

Teachers and school officers cannot initiate or lead prayer among the students. And if you look at all of the Court cases, they have been in regard to, and in prohibition of, school officials or teachers in some way initiating or endorsing prayer on a large scale in a public school, and in some of these cases, it was religious families filing suits against the schools.5Santa Fe Independent School District v. Jane Doe, 530 US 290 (2000): A Catholic and Mormon family filed suit under the moniker “Jane Doe” with regard to school-sponsored, but student-led prayer at a football game.

Has God been taken out of public schools? No.

But many people seem to think that the Courts ruling that the government cannot mandate prayer in a public school is equivalent to saying no one can pray in a public school. This is not true, yet this idea has so permeated our society and is propagated so far and wide that many have called on Congress to remedy the situation through, you guessed it, and amendment to the Constitution of the United States as Paul here recites from a newspaper’s opinion page (he is talking primarily to other atheists who make videos about religion on YouTube):

http://youtu.be/xrWyTThbbKo

Ever heard of the School Prayer Amendment? This is the text of the proposed amendment:

To secure the people’s right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience: The people’s right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage, or traditions on public property, including schools, shall not be infringed. The Government shall not require any person to join in prayer or other religious activity, initiate or designate school prayers, discriminate against religion, or deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion.

Looking at this proposed amendment, it doesn’t appear that it will change the situation at all. In fact, it looks like it only reinforces the Supreme Court’s rulings on the subject.

The School Prayer Amendment was primarily championed by the late-Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV), and failed to pass or died in committee each time it was introduced, most recently in April 2006 where it died in the Senate Judiciary Committee.6Associated Press. (2006, April 30). “Sen. Byrd introduces amendment allowing school prayer“. 7Senate Joint Resolution 35: “A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to clarify that the Constitution neither prohibits voluntary prayer nor requires prayer in schools.” If you count the attempts, he tried to introduce the bill about eight times, if I’ve counted them properly.

In 1998 the House of Representatives took up the effort, but in the vote on the proposed Amendment on June 4, 1998, the House of Representatives fell short of the votes needed to clear just one of the constitutional hurdles in the amendment process.8Van Biema, David (1998, April 27). “Spiriting Prayer Into School“. Time. This appears to be the only time such an amendment proposal has actually made it to a floor vote in either house of Congress.

But let’s get back to the question: is God banished from the classroom? No.

Your child is allowed to pray in school.

For example, a student who is permitted to read non-curricular materials during the student’s free time is permitted to also read the Bible or other religious text, as it would also be a non-curricular material. This free time may include lunch, study halls, or even downtime following a test. Any rules regarding socializing during that free time should be observed.

A student who wishes may also say a small prayer before a test, if the student feels the desire or need to do so, but in a silent manner that would not be disruptive to students who chose to not say a prayer. Should the student be allowed to engage other students in a prayer circle before a test? No, and the reason is because that prayer circle could grow to encompass the entire classroom, and the very feeling that banning school-sanctioned prayer would have prevented suddenly creeps into focus again.

A student who wishes may also say a prayer during lunch before eating. If all students at the same lunch table wish to say a prayer, then by all means, let them. But they should in no way interfere with students at that table who wish to eat without first praying.

Now bear in mind that a teacher or school administrator can ask the student to not pray if the exercise is found to be disruptive, or change the exercise so it is not disruptive or in violation of school rules and/or applicable laws. For example a student standing in a foyer preaching the Gospel can and will be removed, as such preaching actually violates the religious rights of other students.

But the Establishment Clause is clear: the school, its faculty and officers, cannot perform any kind of action that shows or implies favor to one religious denomination over another. To do so is discriminatory to students who do not follow the practices or teachings of that denomination, let alone that religion.

But by all means, students can pray in public schools.

References[+]

Music

I’d like your help

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 1 Comment

I’ve been searching for several years for one particular CD. I’ve tried keeping an eye on eBay, the Amazon Marketplace, and even local used book stores. Not even Napster, Rhapsody, and the iTunes music store have this, so you can probably understand my frustration.

Here’s the details…

Back in 2000, Sydney Forest released a CD called simply Collected Film and Television Works. It used to be available through her web site, when she had one. On the CD are two tracks from the movie Kiki’s Delivery Service, namely the English dubbed version released in 1998 featuring the voices of Kirsten Dunst and Phil Hartman.

You can see more about the CD over at Nausicaa.net. I’ve been on a soundtrack collecting kick lately, and this is one I’ve been trying to find for, as I said, several years. Any help would certainly be appreciated.

And if you haven’t seen Kiki’s Delivery Service, I suggest you rent it. I’d also recommend Spirited Away.

Links

Nausicaa.net – CD soundtracks for Kiki’s Delivery Service [English OP/ED]

Life

Impeccable timing

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

This past Friday, June 26, I met an elderly gentleman. He wasn’t in the best of health, but he still seemed to have some spirits about him. I spent a few hours with him and, while he didn’t speak much, I still felt I got to know something of his personality. He definitely liked his V8, and his mood seemed to improve when I arrived from the convenience store with one just as lunch was being served.

Perfect timing to say the least, even though I had difficulty finding the convenience store in question because I don’t know Topeka, Kansas. In fact meeting that gentleman was the first time I’d ventured away from I-70 into Topeka. He didn’t eat much of his lunch, but he definitely enjoyed that V8.

I could’ve pulled up a chair and sat and listened to him tell me anything about himself he wanted to say. I probably could’ve filled several notebooks with whatever came from his lips. An opportunity unfortunately missed, assuming the opportunity actually existed and he was willing to share.

Instead we both rested, mostly contentedly in the cool room. The amenities on which we rested were hard and it was difficult to remain comfortable for long despite our best efforts. He shifted periodically, as did I.

I just observed him. He observed the room and whatever momentarily caught his attention. The sounds around us in the stale room along with my observances of him kept my mind occupied with darting visions of imagination, wondering not only what was going on around us, but also wondering what was going through this gentleman’s mind.

What kind of visions were running through his head? One can certainly ponder and speculate.

I’ll be seeing this gentleman again this coming Thursday, July 1. And while I liked the time I had with him, I wish I could say I am looking forward to seeing him again.

Late this past Sunday night, June 28, he passed away.

Life/Politics

I’ll do it myself

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

I will be turning 30 later this year. I’ve lived through three decades, six Presidents thus far (though with the first two I don’t remember much), two parents, a brother, who knows how many pets, and several jobs.

When I was younger, I certainly had a feeling or sense of entitlement. Back then, about twenty years ago, people called it “being spoiled” and the words “spoiled brat” were commonly used to describe children with an overbearing feeling of entitlement, like anything they wanted they could have or had to have.

Today there is this feeling floating through the air, it seems, that if you don’t give your children everything they demand, then it’s nothing else short of child abuse.

Today as I look upon my 30th birthday some months down the road, I look back at the last five years. Five years ago, the week before Memorial Day in 2005, I accepted the offer for my first real job out of college. Initially I was modest in what I felt I was worth. I was fresh out of school and didn’t think I would be paid any more than $36K to $40K per annum. When asked about salary, contrary to what seems to be the common recommendation today, being modest I said that I was looking for $36K.

What I failed to take into account in figuring what I felt I was worth is the multitude of experience and learning I had accomplished on my own, learning for which there wasn’t really any paper trail even though there were nuggets lying around here and there that could easily be found, and that I also made sure were mentioned on my resume.

Taking all of that into account, that company felt I had undervalued myself and gave me an offer with a salary about 36% higher than what I was looking for: $49K.

Did I feel I was entitled to such a salary? No I did not. The company in question felt that is what I was worth at the time after taking everything into account. Over the next near three years, I would demonstrate to them that I was earning what they were paying while never asking for anything in return except what I felt I need to do my job better — a second monitor for my computer, I believe, was the only thing I ever requested. Never did I ask for a raise, any additional benefits, or anything else, nor did I demand anything.

And I should also add that I started that job almost 6 months after graduating from college in December 2004.

Contrast that with other youths today, such as the youths in France who are protesting the government wanting to raise the retirement age from 60 to 62.1Charlton, Angela and Okello, Christina. (2010, June 27). “French youths protest over higher retirement age“. Associated Press. Like most workers in the United States, I don’t know what it is like to have many of the entitlements French workers experience, such as a pension guaranteed by the government.

“Don’t let the government squander away our pension!” (emphasis added), one of the protesters bellowed through a microphone.

In the United States, radio and television political commentator and New York Times best-selling author Glenn Beck has reported on youths today having that feeling of entitlement when he quoted on the air2Common American Journal. (2009, October 27). “‘Step aside, Grandma. We want our health care, and we want it now.’“ this letter published in Time Magazine on October 19, 2009:3Time.com. (2009, October 19). “Inbox: Reader’s Letters“ (emphasis added)

Deanna Frankowski, the Beck fan mentioned in your article, is “sick and tired of being ignored”? Give me a break! I had to wait through eight years of an Administration that brought this country to the brink. Frankowski should sit down quietly while the rest of us get to the task of cleaning up Bush’s mess. Besides, this health-care debate isn’t about those over 30; it’s about the millions of uninsured, recently graduated young people saddled with loans we can’t imagine paying off, who are sick and tired of living in an abyss created by our elders’ stupidity. Obama would be smart to focus on college towns. Step aside, Grandma. We want health care, and we want it now.
Agnieszka Marczak,
Lincoln, R.I., U.S.

“Step aside, Grandma.” You know, I would never have said anything like that.

Glenn Beck has commented many times in late 2009 on the “ME generation”, both on his radio show and television broadcast, a generation that Beck has called “a generation of would-be killers” because they care only of themselves4Beck, Glenn. (2009, October 26). “We’re Raising a Generation of Would-be Killers“. Fox News. While I don’t agree with everything Glenn Beck says, he at least has his eyes open, and given some of what I have seen, I reluctantly have to agree with him.

How can we appreciate what we have if we don’t earn it?

In March 2008 I was laid off from that job I mentioned earlier. For 10 1/2 months, I would be struggling to keep my head above water with what felt like an anchor 100 times my body weight tied to my ankles pulling me under. I was on unemployment for much of that time as well, and, like many currently on unemployment today, I worried what would happen if those benefits ran dry and I had not found employment. My fiancée and I discussed what we would do should that day come.

Thankfully that day never came.

However what you never heard from me were demands that unemployment benefits be extended. You never heard from me anything that even implied I had a sense of entitlement to those benefits. I knew they were a privilege, not a right, and while I felt privileged to be able to receive them, I never once felt entitled to them, because I knew those benefits would not be there forever.

When I was hired by my current employer with a much better salary than what I had when laid off, I was certainly relieved. I’m sure they also felt like I was worth what they chose to pay me given my current pay grade (yes, even in my civilian, corporate job, I have a pay grade). I know I have to earn a promotion to the next higher pay grade, and I know what I must do to earn that promotion because I know it won’t just be handed to me.

Yet we hear humorous jests all the time about fresh from college grads demanding high salaries and extravagant benefits without demonstrating in the least how they are worth what they are demanding. If only they were only jests.

I’ve had my job for approaching 17 months. I haven’t had a promotion, and the only raise I received was a cost of living increase. While I make considerably more than I did at my previous job, I know there are others who make considerably less and those who make considerably more compared to my salary, and I’m okay with that.

I’m humble.

I didn’t demand that may parents pay for my college education, yet we have kids today who are demanding that either their parents pay up or they get a free university degree. I did the research to get the financial aid I received, including the student loans I am now almost half-way through paying back. It was quite easy, courtesy of the evolution in information technology that teenagers today also demand access to: the Internet.

While I know about how much my parents make, I’m certainly not going to be borrowing any money from them unless they are the last place I can turn and I desperately need the cash. Even when I was unemployed I did not ask them for money. The only thing I asked them for was advice. They graciously helped supplement our grocery stock by buying a little more and giving it to us, but I never asked them to do that. For those of you who have no idea how that works, it’s called being charitable.

Yet today we have kids of rich parents who feel entitled to their parents’ wealth.5Fleming, Jeanne, PhD., and Schwartz, Leonard. (2007, March 8). “‘My rich parents won’t share’: How open must you be with family members regarding your financial situation?” CNN Money. Somehow the concept of “showing consideration for others’ pocketbooks” has been lost to time, as can be seen by the increasing numbers of identity theft, especially increasing numbers of cases of parents’ stealing the identities of their children.

My parents at one point even thought I was one of these less-humble, overly-demanding teenagers. The day of my 18th birthday, I received a phone call from the admissions department of Gustavus-Adolphus College in St. Paul, Minnesota. I informed them that I was no longer interested in attending that school. My father went ballistic, and it was the only time in my life I have ever been afraid of him.

Now he never struck me, but he trashed a few things in my bedroom when he confronted me on that, very visibly pissed off. He was under the presumption that I wanted him to stroke a check to Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa (we lived in West Des Moines, Iowa, at the time), despite me trying to tell him over and over again that this was not the case. He would not listen.

To prove to him that I did not want him paying for my education, I signed up the next month for a class through Des Moines Area Community College. The class was at an extension location at nearby Valley High School. Just one class to prove to my father I was going to take responsibility for my education and my future.

And I have.

What we need are more teenagers and new adults doing the same, taking responsibility for their lives and their futures. We need to vacate this sense of entitlement from our current and upcoming generations and they need to realize that they don’t have a right to anything others must provide for them to even have, such as health care, an education, food, a job and a place to live.

I almost lost everything in 2008. Even now in 2010 I’m still cleaning up the mess, and it’s going to take years to completely get out from under it. But never once have I demanded someone else take me out from under it or give me what I need to get out from under it.

I have arms, legs, and a brain to operate them.

I’ll do it myself.

References[+]