Life

iPhone 4

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Apple’s promotion and now release of the iPhone 4 has been mired by praise and criticisms all-around. Development of the phone was super-secret, which is part of Apple’s nature. Rumors are leaked here and there to keep the rest of the industry guessing, which allows Apple to really blow away the minds of the public when they debut something new.

The iPhone 4 is certainly no exception to this modus operandi, but ever since Apple made the official public debut of the new iPhone, criticisms, some of which I feel are unfair, have been lobbed against Apple and the new iPhone, almost exclusively by supporters of the competing Google Android platform. Why is this? Google’s Android is a quasi-open platform, while Apple’s iPhone operating system is entirely proprietary. That’s the basic nuts and bolts of it, and it’s the latest battlefield of a philosophical argument that has been going on for almost 30 years.

Yesterday, Scott Morris of TheStreet offered his “5 Big Blemishes for the Apple iPhone 4“. Herein I shall provide my rebuttal.

No. 5: Skimpy Camera

The first thing Scott mentions is the fact that the iPhone 4 has only a 5 megapixel camera while new Android-based phones have megapixel ratings higher than even my Nikon D40. But there’s a major downside to higher megapixel camera phones: they’re camera phones. I avoid the camera on my iPhone 3Gs for that very reason. It’s great for quick pictures here and there, but a 12 megapixel camera on a cellular phone? That’s overkill. 12-megapixel cameras are used to produce ultra-high resolution images that can be printed on posters and larger with no loss in image quality. Somehow I don’t see people taking poster-sized or poster-quality pictures with a camera phone.

No. 4: No Swype

For those of you who don’t know, Swype is a relatively new technology on Android platforms, developed by Swype, Inc. If you want Swype on the iPhone, they’ll have to first develop it. Plus Swype is currently in beta, so why is a financial writer complaining about beta software not being available on the iPhone?

Personally I wouldn’t want to see Swype available on the iPhone until it was ready, and given that the iPhone has only one platform, if they develop it for the iPhone they can test it thoroughly in-house without needing to rely on an open beta program.

No. 3: Video calling

One of the biggest gripes against the iPhone is the fact that it uses a proprietary video codec in FaceTime — H.264. For those who don’t know what that is… it’s not really important. However it is expected to outdo the current options available for the Android platform, which have consistently received inconsistent reviews because of a very inconsistent user experience — i.e. they’re unreliable, as Revision3’s AppJudgment recently pointed out:

Scott also mentions this:

That someone has to have a WiFi connection and he has to use the same application on his own iPhone 4. You’re looking at a small club of people — not exactly an application of global Skype-like proportions.

FaceTime is currently available only on the iPhone 4, so yes, both ends of the conversation will need to be using it, just like both ends of a Skype conversation need to be using something Skype-compatible. This is what we in the software development field call “protocol compatibility”. FaceTime is new, so give it time and there may be other FaceTime compatible applications popping up for other platforms.

Plus the fact you have to use a Wi-fi connection should actually be considered a blessing given the recent changes AT&T made to their pricing of data plans. And with wi-fi hotspots all over the place, or so it seems, how big of a problem will this be, especially in major metropolitan areas such as the one in which I live.

Now whether FaceTime is similar to or better than the current offerings for Android will soon be seen.

No. 2: iPhone 4 Shortages

The frustration [over sellouts and delays] could push buyers toward other phones.

Yeah, just like shortages, delays, sellouts, rainchecks, and the like pushed people away from the Wii toward the PlayStation 3 and the X-Box 360. Oh wait, that didn’t happen. People just waited for the Wii to come in and then got in line.

If someone really wants an iPhone 4, they’ll wait till it’s in stock and acquire it.

No. 1: No Verizon iPhone.

Just like there isn’t a Sprint or AT&T Droid X, or a Verizon or AT&T Palm Pre, or a Sprint or AT&T HTC Incredible. The only popular mobile phone available across carriers reliably is Blackberry. The Nexus One is also available for a discount on Sprint and Verizon or for the full $529 price on T-Mobile and AT&T. Actually Verizon seems to be getting the best of the Android phones, and Android is only recently being introduced into AT&T’s offerings.

So why is there not a Verizon iPhone? Because Verizon’s network is CDMA like Sprint while AT&T’s network is GSM like T-Mobile. It’s also why the Droid X won’t work on AT&T but should work on Sprint (though Sprint isn’t offering it), and vice-versa with the Palm Pre. So right now if I want an Android phone on AT&T, unless I go with the HTC Aria or the Motorola Backflip, my options are limited unless I shell out the $529 for the Nexus One (no thanks).

Exclusivity deals are nothing new, yet no one seems to be complaining about HTC not making more Android phones for AT&T instead of Verizon and Sprint. Hmm… quite curious.

Plus as one commenter to the article pointed out, if Verizon is so superior to AT&T, why didn’t they land the exclusivity deal with Apple? Instead it seems they’re releasing a new Android phone every few weeks to month whereas aside from today the last iPhone release as last June, the iPhone 3Gs.

Religion/Sex/Supreme Court

Sexual morality and Texas

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

In typical discussions of morality, two topics tend to come up more than most: sex and abortion. Obviously the two are related — without the former you would not have the latter, but also, and obviously, without the former, you and I would not exist. This discussion will also focus primarily on the former.

The general ideas of morality surrounding both topics tend to be derived from religious views: centuries and millennia-old ideas that have been, for lack of better words, pounded into the heads of unwavering and, for the most part, unquestioning followers from pulpits by charismatic individuals who are, themselves, only pushing an agenda also pounded into their heads decades earlier by similarly-charismatic individuals.

For the most part in recent jurisprudence, the Courts have struck down a lot of morality laws that have no firm basis in reality and no benefit to society. In 2003 the Supreme Court of the United States targeted and overturned the laws of the State of Texas that criminalized sodomy. Yesterday it was revealed that the Texas GOP wants Congress to exercise its authority under the Constitution to limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts to exclude cases involving sodomy laws.1Article III, Section 2: "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." (emphasis added) 2Garcia, Ivan. (2010, June 19). "Texas GOP Wishes to Punish Straight People Who Support Gay Rights". GLTNewsNow.com

So why the need to criminalize through the penal code homosexual conduct? It is a standing principal of common and statutory law that conduct which is not explicitly forbidden by law is allowed — i.e. a person cannot be prosecuted for conduct, even if the conduct is unwelcome or deemed "evil" through whichever religious belief system you happen to subscribe, if there is not also a law expressly proscribing such conduct.

Or to quote the jocular, "Everything which is not forbidden is allowed".

Texas currently has laws on the books criminalizing "deviant sexual conduct" between homosexuals.3Title 5, Sec. 21.01 of the Texas Penal Code Several other States have similar laws, along with laws criminalizing other forms of sexual conduct, such as adultery and fornication (sex outside the confines of marriage). Some States adopted a wide definition of sodomy to include not just anal sex, but to essentially criminalize all sexual conduct that is not vaginal sexual intercourse.

All laws criminalizing sodomy were deemed unenforceable by the Supreme Court of the United States in the 2003 decision Lawrence v. Texas4539 US 558 (2003):

The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives.

The fight against laws regarding sexual activity arguably started with the 1965 decision by the Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut5381 US 479 (1965), which overturned laws that sought to criminalize the distribution of contraceptives. The scope of the decision was limited only to married couples, a limitation the Supreme Court would vacate in 1972 with Eisenstadt v. Baird6405 US 438 (1972), which overturned invariably any criminal law that sought to criminalize the distribution of contraceptives to any adult, married or not:

If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.7405 US 438, 453

Then in 1973 came the ever-controversial Roe v. Wade8410 US 113 (1973) and Doe v. Bolton9410 US 179 (1973) decisions.

For centuries the relationship between the morality and criminality of actions has been debated, discussed, dissertated, opined, and argued with only one consistent outcome being reached: the immorality of an action does not justify its criminality. To warrant a criminal law proscribing conduct, society itself must be harmed by the conduct in question.

Thus the question stands: how is society harmed by homosexual activity?

I contend that society is no more or no less harmed when two (or more) consenting homosexual adults, whether they all be male or female, engage in sexual activity, just as society is no more or less harmed when two (or more) consenting heterosexual adults engage in sexual activity. However the question is not mine to answer.

Those who seek to impose their own view of morality on the general public through the enactment of criminal and penal laws are the ones who must answer the question.

Taking the Lawrence and Baird decisions together, it can be said that the State has no business criminalizing sexual activity between two or more adults, married or not. With such a conclusion I would most definitely agree. The question of morality need not be resolved, but when such questions of morality are brought into the politically-charged arena of the state legislature, chaos invariably erupts with oppression cast upon those whose morality point of view falls in the minority point of view of those serving in the legislature.

It is the protection against such oppression the Constitution is designed to protect.

References[+]

Law/Life/Politics

The appeal of socialism

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

The battle with the oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico has renewed individual resolve for socialist agendas in the United States of America. Cries and chants calling for the nationalization of British Petroleum (NYSE: BP) or at least the seizing of whatever of its assets fall under the jurisdiction of the United States have lit up social networking sites and comment boards over the last few weeks as it seems progress on curtailing further damage to the environment seems to be a high-odds bet.

Arguably the seizing of BP’s assets can only occur through a properly filed motion with the United States District Court, but that is currently beside the point.

So why is there a huge call for the seizure of BP’s assets? For starters BP reported on February 2, 2010 a "full cost replacement profit" of approximately $14 billion1British Petroleum. (2010, February 2). "BP Delivers on Promises in “Very Good” 2009 as 4Q Profits Jump 70 per cent". The day of the report BP’s stock closed at $55.46 per share on the New York Stock Exchange, down from a 2010 peak of $62.32 on January 19. The stock price closed on Friday, June 18, 2010, at $31.76, a 49% loss in value since the January peak in price, and a 47% loss in value since the BP stock price started a free fall after the stock closed at $59.88 on April 23.

So it can be safe to argue that seizing BP’s assets under US jurisdiction, including oil wells and fields, and nationalizing them has appeal for many Americans. Perhaps they feel that by placing those assets under the control of the government of the United States, those billions in profits will do the country a lot of good. And if BP’s assets were to be nationalized, or the entire oil industry as Congresswoman Maxine Waters [D-CA(35)] has publicly stated2Beck, Glenn. (2010, January 12). "Big Oil vs. the Fed: Double Standard?" FoxNews.com., and the profitability were to remain steady while under the direct control of the Federal government, it could certainly pump a lot of money into a Federal system that is increasingly running massive deficits.

Except one thing that most people fail to realize is that no company placed under the direct control of the United States government has ever consistently turned a profit. The typical trend is that they will run massive losses, need consistent and constant infusions of cash from the Treasury, and be nothing but a drain on our economy. Amtrak is one hell of an example.

But massive profits from giant corporations is nothing new. It seems like every time there is a crisis, the profitable corporations are the ones taking all the blame. After all they must be sucking all the money from the economy and hoarding it for themselves, slowing the economy and bringing it into recession. Isn’t that how the Great Depression started? Giant corporations siphoning cash out of the economy at unheard-of rates and in unheard-of amounts until the economy came to a near-crashing halt?

Uh, no.

It’s easy for the large corporations to become the scapegoats for one simple reason: they have money. It’s the same reason why bashing and bilking the rich has become a popular sport in the political arenas across the United States. They’re hoarding cash and they should be forced to share it by ways of windfall profit taxes and taxes on cash holdings, right?

The appeal of socialism is one simple concept: the generation of wealth that is then shared more or less equally by all who helped to generate the wealth. On the small scale this has a lot of appeal and has the potential to work and work well, but once you start trying to scale this up, you start running into problems. If the "small scale" is a corporation in whose employ you happened to be, there would still be a hierarchy or chain of command, but your salary wouldn’t be driven by your experience, expertise, pay grade, position or seniority, but purely by the ability for the corporation to generate wealth.

On the large scale, however, this concept collapses under its own weight.

A lot of people have the economic concept of socialism confused with communism and the political concept of socialism, and they are not the same. Communism means that those who can generate the wealth will do so, but everyone shares equally in the wealth, regardless of whether they helped generate it or not. Karl Marx summed it up nicely in an oft-quoted statement from his book Critique of the Gotha Program: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." The theory and idea of communism has a lot of appeal as well, but in practice it has a lot of problems, and collapses under its own weight and lack of merit.

And in the current economy, both concepts have a lot of appeal to a public that is struggling. Unemployment is still up around 10%, and even as the economy rebounds and more of the unemployed start looking again for work, unemployment will still hover around 10% for a long time simply because of how the unemployment rate is calculated.

But why have both socialism and communism struggled and/or collapsed? One simple reason: greed.

But it is greed that allows capitalism to succeed. Many say that greed is capitalism’s shortfall, but the economic history of the United States shows this to be different. Like natural selection and the struggle for survival, there is a similar natural order of selection that takes place in a market that is allowed to operate. Those who are too greedy, who operate only for themselves and not for the customers that provide them with the revenue to survive eventually die off and whatever market share they had is absorbed by the remainder of the market.

Everyone competes economically for limited resources. It is the failure to observe this concept that is the eventual downfall of communism and socialism.

Many feel that there is an unlimited supply of the resources necessary for survival, and it is in the failure to see the fallacy of that concept that has allowed political socialism and, to a lesser degree, communism to come in and take over. They don’t see just how limited our resources are.

And even when the truth of limited resources becomes apparent, the people are so ill-informed that the appeal of socialism and communism is still bright because of one other simple concept: it’s different. And by being different, the thought gets planted in the heads of the populous that it must somehow be better, right? Change can be good, but you must first understand the kind of change being implemented before you can make that determination.

And time and again socialism has shown itself to fail because it collapses when the people get greedy. And when everyone is supposedly sharing equally in what wealth is available, there is no room for greed.

The appeal of socialism is that everyone shares in the vast wealth that is available, and for those of lesser fortunes how can they say no?

But there is only one means by which the wealth in this country has been generated: capitalism. Without capitalism and the free market, our country would be nowhere near as wealthy as we have become. But the idea of capitalism is that you earn your share of the wealth and you earn your place in the market through competition, and you keep your place in the market by surviving the competition, rather than having it handed to you because you exist.

References[+]

Abortion/Life/Sex

Coerced pregnancies

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

This is probably something you don’t consider: a man doing something that causes a woman to get pregnant against her will. This could include compromising a condom, removing it mid-coitus, or compromising or destroying the woman’s birth control, among other options.

If you’ve seen the show Weeds, you’ll probably remember a scene from the season 2 episode “Last Tango in Agrestic”, in which Silas pierces a condom with a safety pin, causing his girlfriend, Megan, to get pregnant. Unfortunately Megan is also persuaded to get an abortion by her parents and the two never see each other again.

If a recent article on Alternet is to be believed, Silas’ episode is mild compared to what is actually going on. Allegedly the problem of men coercing pregnancies as a means of controlling the relationship or a situation is more common than one might think, and is certainly more common than I originally gave it thought — well any amount is more than none as, until I saw the Weeds episode mentioned (thank you Netflix), I hadn’t really given it any thought.

It is also something that should be a cause for concern.

In April I wrote an article in which I discussed the much-proffered claim that the abortion industry is targeting African Americans. In that article I mentioned domestic violence and posed the question of what role domestic violence plays in a woman’s decision to obtain an abortion. Taking coerced pregnancies into account, the ability to answer that question becomes easier and more difficult simultaneously.

And the reason for that is, as the article mentions, even if the woman gets pregnant the man could still demand she obtain an abortion, or threaten to kill her if she does get one. All of this appears to be in an effort to control the woman by also, through threat of or actual use of violence, taking control of her reproduction.

One fear a lot of men have probably had at one point in their life is that a woman will try to covertly get herself pregnant to corner him into marriage or at least being in her life in some fashion (even if it’s through child support payments automatically garnished from his paycheck by order of the Court). In an episode of the show Spin City called “Hot in the City”, a woman with whom Mike Flaherty (played by Michael J. Fox) had a romantic encounter recovered the condom he used and stored it in her freezer until the optimum time (which never came courtesy of a convenient power outage).

Yet this article discusses the exact opposite thing occurring: men coercing or forcing women into getting pregnant. Compromising the condom, removing it mid-coitus, never using it to begin with and failing to pull out, compromising or destroying birth control pills, and so on. Again this is certainly cause for concern.

And then there’s this question: what role does this play in the current rate of abortions? Obviously this article is discussing a form of domestic violence, so I think it’s a question to be explored more, and I’m glad to see that the phenomenon of coerced pregnancies will be studied further, and I hope in further studies they try to find the relationship, if any, between coerced pregnancies and abortions.

After all no woman should be coerced into getting pregnant. But one thing this definitely makes clear is how little we actually understand of the whole spectrum of unintended pregnancies and abortions.

References

Harris, Lynn. (2010, May 28). “‘My Boyfriend Stole My Birth Control’: When Men Force Women to Get Pregnant Against Their Will“. AlterNet.

Constitution

A Disclaimer for the Constitution?

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

This is something that has recently been reported on Fox News, and saw a brief cameo on Glenn Beck’s show, and something of which I only just now learned. There is a publisher who is publishing pocket-sized copies of the Constitution of the United States, the Declaration of Independence, and the Articles of Confederation with a disclaimer.

The publisher in question is Wilder Publications, and you can purchase a copy through Amazon.com (ISBN-10: 1-60459-268-0). If you visit the Amazon.com page for this item and click on the “Look inside” feature, all you have to do is scroll a couple pages to see the following disclaimer:

Everywhere this copy is being sold, it is receiving dire ratings and reviews from customers, and virtually all of the 1-star reviews cite this disclaimer as the reason. Needless to say there has been much uproar over this product, and it is much deserved.

Other links

Other options

Life

Criticizing Abby

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Abigail “Abby” Sunderland attempted a feat of which most most everyone in the world could only dream. Sailing around the world is no small matter. Sailing into the open ocean period requires you to keep your wits about you as the ocean can be unpredictable.

But much of the criticism of her attempts to circle the globe have been lobbed not just at Abby, who is only 16 years old, but also at Abby’s parents, and this, I feel, is unfair. Abby made the decision to attempt this voyage, and I feel she would not have made this decision if she felt she was not experienced and able enough for the task. Again, circling the globe is no small feat.

Even experienced mariners can find themselves in trouble out on the ocean, as several experienced mariners have stated in interviews with various news organizations regarding Abby’s attempt.

Abby is a minor, yes, but she has shown that she is no ordinary teenager. She thought and planned this out very thoroughly, allegedly over the course of several years, and likely also with the help of her brother, Zac, who is the first person to circumnavigate the globe as a minor.

At age 16, if she wasn’t attempting to sail around the world, what else would she be doing? Think for a moment about what a typical teenager is doing in this country? It’s June, school is out likely all of the United States right now. Some teenagers will have jobs, others will be doing near-meaningless things with their time until school starts again in August or September.

Abby was having arguably the greatest adventure of her young life.

Her parents could have stopped her, but everyone knew of the risks involved and felt that she could handle it, and Abby’s family supported her. The ocean can be unpredictable, but so is life, and having the support of friends and family can help you through some of the toughest challenges you’ll face.

Those who feel the need to criticize Abby or her parents about this sailing attempt really need to take a firm look at themselves and the teenagers around them. Teenagers today have life very easy, and I’ve seen many demand it to be easier. They have few needs but many wants they mistake for needs. Few any more take up challenges that place them under any kind of mental or physical pressure, including the pressures of basic survival in some of the harshest areas of the planet.

For Abby to complete her circumnavigation would have required not only the skill and experience gained in her several years of training, but also a lot of luck that the weather and ocean would cooperate along her route of travel. Unfortunately the latter ran out.

If this voyage was haphazardly planned on a whim, as if Abby woke up one morning and said “I think I’ll sail around the world” and just jumped in her boat and set off, then criticisms would certainly be warranted and criminal charges would likely be demanded by the general public. But that is not what happened.

The criticisms that have been lodged against Abby and her family are undeserved and unfair. If anything Abby certainly deserves praise for undertaking this voyage, and her family certainly deserves praise for not only allowing their teenager to take these kinds of risks, but also supporting her every step of the way.

They knew of the possibility Abby would run into dangerous waters, possibly causing her vessel to become disabled or worse. But Abby was trained and experienced, and that is evident in how she responded when the ocean disabled her vessel at approximately 40° 48’S, 74° 58’E.

Abby knew what she was doing, and she was aware of the risks and dangers. So was her family.

But if you feel the need or desire to lob criticisms at Abby or her family for allowing her to undertake this dangerous voyage, and you are also the parent of a teenager who will likely be spending most of his or her summer texting, surfing the web, and/or playing video games among other relatively unproductive things, then the criticism should really be going back on you.

Again the criticisms of Abby and her family are undeserved and unfair. Leave them be and at least be thankful that Abby was found alive and reasonably safe.

(Photo copyright © 2009 GizaraArts.com, obtained from press kit on Abby’s voyage dubbed “Project Global Breeze”)

Pledge of Allegiance/Religion/Supreme Court

Further commentary on the pledge of allegiance

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 3 Comments

If you threaten to take the words “under God” out of the pledge of allegiance, you’re a secular, anti-American lunatic. Or so the Christian right in this country would have you believe.

For me, I say don’t remove the words “under God”, instead repeal the whole, freakin’ thing. Take the entire pledge out of the Flag Code, out of the United States Code. Repeal the pledge of allegiance.

It’s interesting, to say the least, how the Christian right wants to preserve something that is actually a product of socialism. I can hear the cries now, “Wait a sec, what? Socialism?” When you look at the pledge in depth, it becomes clear.

A small percentage of this country knows how the pledge of allegiance came about. It was created in 1892 by a Christian socialist, Francis Julius Bellamy. He had a cousinly relationship with Edward Bellamy, a socialist author who wrote Looking Backward and Equality. But note that Bellamy was a Christian as well. A Christian wrote the pledge of allegiance and left out the words “under God”.

Few have actually thought about the pledge of allegiance, which currently reads:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.14 USC § 4

Think about these words for a moment, and I mean really think about them. I’ll give you a moment. Now let’s break this down.

“I pledge allegiance”

Pledging allegiance is certainly a good thing. After all there is no reason to be a citizen of a country to whom you are not loyal. This is why the Oath of Citizenship required of all naturalized citizens includes the words “bearing true faith and allegiance”, but with reference to the Constitution, not

“to the flag of the United States of America”

Why make it a pledge of allegiance to the flag of this country? As I discussed in a previous article, this is a form of political idolatry. By pledging allegiance to the flag, you are not pledging allegiance to the country. Bellamy would have you believe that pledging allegiance to the Flag is the same as pledging allegiance to the United States, but it is not. It’s the same as praying using prayer beads, a rosary, or kneeling before a cross and expecting that to be the same as praying to God or Christ. It is not.

By pledging allegiance to the flag, you are not simultaneously pledging allegiance

“to the Republic for which it stands”

You are pledging allegiance to a symbol of the country, not the country itself. But wait a second. Pledging allegiance to the “republic for which it stands”? Doesn’t that sound like pledging allegiance to the state, to the United States of America. Why not pledge allegiance to the Constitution?

I declare and solemnly affirm that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion.

Our Republic is nothing without the Constitution of the United States of America. Remember that.

I remember hearing on Glenn Beck’s program numerous times how the progressive movement involves undermining the Constitution. Could the pledge have been a subtle start to that?

“one Nation”

We are a federation of independent, sovereign States, or so we were until various changes starting in the 1910s started undermining this. Arguably the first change that started degrading our identity as a federated republic is the Seventeenth Amendment (emphasis added):

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.

Before the Seventeenth Amendment, Senators were appointed by the State legislatures. This kept representation of the people and the States distinct, but it also kept distinct the States themselves by recognizing individual State sovereignty at the Federal level.

The United States is not “one Nation”, the United States is a federation of sovereign States, sovereign States that worked together to win independence from the Crown of Great Britain, and sovereign States that must again work together to win independence from the very government the States themselves formed.

“under God”

Recall from earlier in this article that under God was not present in the original pledge, despite the fact that the pledge was written by a Christian in 1892. Bellamy also thought that the pledge would involve children all across the country in what would arguably be the largest demonstration of national solidarity and patriotism.

In fact, the original pledge didn’t even say “flag of the United States of America”, but originally read “my Flag”. It was changed in 1923 as a benefit to new immigrants to read “flag of the United States”. The words “of America” were added in 1924.

First recognized by Congress on June 22, 1942, over six months into the United States involvement in the second World War following the attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, the pledge read as:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

The first unofficial addition of the words “under God” came from Louis Bowman, and he was awarded an Award of Merit by the National Society for the Daughters of the American Revolution for the idea. Allegedly at a meeting of the Illinois Society of the Sons of the American Revolution on Lincoln’s birthday in 1948, he led the society in the pledge with the added words, and repeated such a trend at other meetings.

In 1951, possibly following in Bowman’s footsteps, the Knights of Columbus also started reciting the pledge with the additional words. The move was made official by the organization itself in a resolution adopted on August 21, 1952. Over the next several years, the Knights of Columbus would make several attempts to petition Congress to amend the official pledge of allegiance to include “under God”, all of which failed.

Then on February 8, 1954, at the suggestion of President Eisenhower, under guidance from George MacPherson Docherty, Congressman Charles Oakman (R-MI) introduced a bill to amend the pledge to include “under God”. It passed both houses of Congress and was signed into law June 14, 1954 — Flag Day.

“indivisible”

The idea the United States is indivisible is said to stem from words by President Abraham Lincoln. I feel, however, that President Buchanan has the best statement on the topic, when he addresses secession in his final State of the Union address:

In order to justify secession as a constitutional remedy, it must be on the principle that the Federal Government is a mere voluntary association of States, to be dissolved at pleasure by any one of the contracting parties. If this be so, the Confederacy is a rope of sand, to be penetrated and dissolved by the first adverse wave of public opinion in any of the States. In this manner our thirty-three States may resolve themselves into as many petty, jarring, and hostile republics, each one retiring from the Union without responsibility whenever any sudden excitement might impel them to such a course. By this process a Union might be entirely broken into fragments in a few weeks which cost our forefathers many years of toil, privation, and blood to establish.2State of the Union Address, 1860. James Buchannan, President of the United States

Buchanan here is stating that the individual States do not have the right to secede from the United States. Indeed the Constitution does not provide such a power, and does not deny it either. Under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, powers that are not provided in the Constitution are reserved to the States first, then the People. So does a State have the power to secede from the Union?

Not exactly. Congress is provided the power under Article IV, clause 1 of the Constitution to admit new States. As such, it is reasonable to conclude that only through Congress and by act of Congress may States leave the union.

So in a way we are indivisible, but not entirely so.

“with liberty and justice for all.”

All one has to do is look around to see that this is slowly no longer becoming the case, and in some ways never was to begin with. This can definitely be seen with how the pledge was treated in law, and I’m not referring to attempts to remove “under God”, I’m referring to attempts to compel students to recite the pledge.

In 1940 the Supreme Court of the United States actually backed these laws, upholding in the case Minersville School District v. Gobitas, 310 US 586 (1940), laws that required students to salute the flag and recite the pledge of allegiance. Jehovah’s Witnesses are compelled against doing such an action as they consider it a form of idolatry.

The Court reasoned in an opinion written by Justice Felix Frankfurter that the state’s interest in “national cohesion” is “inferior to none in the hierarchy of legal values”:

National unity is the basis of national security. To deny the legislature the right to select appropriate means for its attainment presents a totally different order of problem from that of the propriety of subordinating the possible ugliness of littered streets to the free expression opinion through handbills.3Minersville School District v. Gobitas, 310 US 586 at 595 (1940)

Justice Harlan Stone was the lone dissenter in the case:

The guaranties of civil liberty are but guaranties of freedom of the human mind and spirit and of reasonable freedom and opportunity to express them. They presuppose the right of the individual to hold such opinions as he will and to give them reasonably free expression, and his freedom, and that of the state as well, to teach and persuade others by the communication of ideas.4Minersville School District v. Gobitas, 310 US 586 at 604 (1940)

The Court would reverse its standing just three years later in deciding the case West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 USC 624 (1943), holding that compelling students to recite the pledge of allegiance violates that student’s rights under the First Amendment.

Harlan Stone was an Associate Justice in 1940 when the Court decided the Gobitas case. In 1941 he was elevated to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and joined the majority opinion written by Associate Justice Robert Jackson. Frankfurter would file a dissenting opinion in the Barnette case.

Don’t pledge allegiance to the flag

The pledge of allegiance is a product of socialism, possibly even a product of progressivism. James Peron wrote an article published in May 2001 in which he puts forth an interesting argument stating that the pledge is a “child of the socialist Progressive movement”.5Peron, James. (2001, May). “The Pledge versus the Oath.” Ideas on Liberty, 51(5). And if you want to see some interesting, but somewhat unorganized arguments linking the pledge of allegiance to Nazism, google Rex Curry.

So with the legacy of the pledge itself questionably un-American, why are so many Americans so concerned with preserving the two words “under God”? Hell, even the original flag salute (see right), called the Bellamy salute, had to be repealed and modified. That wouldn’t occur officially until June 22, 1942. The Bellamy salute started with the palm down salute used by our military followed by the arm being extended outward toward the flag as shown in the photograph.

Repeal the pledge!

I say the time has come to remove the pledge of allegiance entirely. Repeal the pledge, I say. Except the progressives in Congress will want to keep it because of its socialist and progressive legacy, and the conservatives will want to keep it because of the words “under God”. Interesting, to say the least. Troubling, as well.

We need to stop reciting it in schools, stop reciting it period. We need to get rid of the pledge of allegiance.

Instead declare your allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America.

See also: Putting nationalism ahead of freedom and the Constitution

Citations

References[+]

Immigration/Letters to politicians

Response from Senator Lieberman

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Recall from an earlier post that I sent an e-mail to Senator Lieberman (I-CT) regarding the Terrorist Expatriation Act. I’ve received a reply from the Senator’s office, and it was unfortunately a form reply:

Dear Mr. Ballard:

Thank you for taking the time to contact me. I appreciate the opportunity to know your opinions on the pressing issues facing our nation. Regrettably, due to the huge volume of mail that I receive, I am only able to research and address comments sent to me from Connecticut residents. If you are not from Connecticut, you may want to consider sending a message to the Senators from your state of residence. You can do so by visiting http://www.senate.gov for a link to the websites of each member of the United State Senate. If you are currently residing out of state, but are still a Connecticut resident or have a connection to Connecticut, please be certain to use your Connecticut address or indicate your Connecticut connection in the first paragraph of your email.

I value having the benefit of your thoughtful concerns, since I do receive detailed weekly reports from my staff providing a sampling of comments from across the country on timely issues before Congress.

Thank you again for sharing your views and concerns with me. I hope you will continue to visit my website at http://lieberman.senate.gov for updated news about my work on behalf of Connecticut and the nation. Please contact me if you have any additional questions or comments about our work in Congress.

Sincerely,

Joseph I. Lieberman
UNITED STATES SENATOR

Ah, nothing like getting blown off by our representatives. You’d think that because I was sending an e-mail about legislation he created that he’d be willing to answer questions about it. After all, it is his legislation, so he should defend it against anyone who asks questions, whether from the media and even from citizens who aren’t part of his constituency. I will be sending e-mails to my respective Senators and my Congressman about this bill as well to solicit an opinion. As with my e-mail to Senator Lieberman, I’ll post those e-mails when I send them.

As of May 6 both the House and Senate versions of the Terrorist Expatriation Act have been submitted to committees within their respective houses. There has not been activity on either bill since that time.

Life/Religion

Commentary on holidays

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Here’s one question I’ve found myself asking over the last few years: is there a point to holidays? Looking on Dictionary.com, a holiday is

a day fixed by law or custom on which ordinary business is suspended in commemoration of some event or in honor of some person.

Beyond the definition, what exactly is a holiday? It’s nothing more than a day that someone, somewhere, somehow managed to convince society should be deemed important. They honor someone or some event of ambiguous importance because we’ve lost the ability to honor that person or event on a daily basis, assuming they were important to begin with.

For example let’s take what is arguably the largest holiday in the Christian religion: Christmas. It’s a highly commercial time. For some, Christmas shopping begins in January and extends throughout the year, while for others it’s a mad dash in a few shopping days prior to December 25. For everyone who considers themselves a Christian and participates in the commercialization of that day, it’s also the largest annual display of hypocrisy ever conceived.

Now my gripe isn’t with any specific holiday, it’s with all holidays.

The Fourth of July commemorates the signing of the Declaration of Independence. What great way to celebrate the largest unmatched display of courage by recognizing it once a year and forgetting it every other day.

Memorial Day is to commemorate those who paid dearly such that society and posterity may enjoy the freedoms we take for granted every day. Commemorating one day to that memory will never be enough. We take for granted every day freedom of which we are stewards. Recognizing the ultimate sacrifice and those who paid that ultimate price just one day out of the year (two if you count Veteran’s Day) is never enough, especially when we all conveniently forget that we are stewards of liberty every other day of the year.

Veteran’s Day is the day to commemorate those who served this country with honor and lived to tell their story. Why recognize their service just one day of the year, then conveniently forget it every other day of the year? This just does not make sense.

Growing up I was reminded every day of the year of my father’s service to this country. Pictures around the house of my father in his Navy uniform reminded me of the 12 years he gave of himself to this country. For more than 20 years, I’ve carried my late grandfather’s Navy dog tag from his service during the Korean war. Though I don’t say it, I’m proud of them.

Remember that our servicemen, both enlisted and officers, don’t pick the battles they fight. However your support and recognition of our veterans and those currently serving should not be conditioned upon your support or approval of the missions they face. You should always support those currently serving, and recognize those who served with honor, and remember those who perished serving this country.

Next up on the chopping block, New Year’s Day. I can understand wanting a special day for the start of the year, but some of the practices for that particular day just boggle the mind, in my opinion. It’s a new year, but what’s the big deal? You hope that the new year will be better than the one left behind, but if you’re hoping that’s going to happen without any action or change on your part, you’re only wasting your time and effort. This, I believe, is the principal reason why new year resolutions fail.

And after New Year’s is everyone’s either favorite or most detested holiday: Valentine’s Day. There is so much I could say about this day, but I’ll leave it at this: like anniversaries and birthdays, if you think your significant other must do something on this day, you need to re-examine your relationship. Valentine’s Day is a joke, a commercial joke.

"But it’s the one day of the year where you can show each other how much you love them," I’ve heard one person say in attempted defense of the holiday. And my response was simply this, "And how is that any different from any other day of the year?" I don’t need Valentine’s Day as an excuse to take my fiancée out to dinner on the KC Plaza, dine her like she’s never been dined before, then bring her back home and test the boundaries of the local noise ordinances, nor do I need it as a way to convince her that I love her. Same with our anniversary or her birthday.

The best relationships are ones where displays of love are unexpected and spontaneous. Valentine’s Day is going to be either a day of disappointment or a day of illusion. If you truly love the person you’re with, you won’t care what happens on Valentine’s Day, or on any holiday for that matter. You’ll care only that you’re happy together.

Time to bring up Christmas again, this time because I’m bringing up Easter. Two Christian holidays that have become very commercial, all while Christians are screaming about how we don’t appreciate Jesus anymore, assuming you ever appreciated him to begin with.

Like Valentine’s Day for Christians, Christmas and Easter have become days where Christians who still care about their faith, even if they’re apathetic about it the other 363 days of the year (364 on leap years), come together to recognize the supposed divinity of Jesus, hoping that by at least recognizing those two days of the year and praying on those two days, they’ll still be saved and will walk alongside Jesus in heaven.

Can anyone smell the hypocrisy? I’ll give you a hint: it smells a lot like brimstone.

Again, I could go on and on about both Christmas and Easter, but that’s for another rant. And the same with the other holidays for that matter, so perhaps I will rant more about each holiday at later times, and I’ll include anniversaries and birthdays in that list as well.

And in case you couldn’t tell, I’m someone who has become anti-holiday in my experience. I just don’t see the point. If you want to try to convince me otherwise, go ahead, but I’ll warn you in advance that you’re in for one hell of a fight. And if you’re wondering how my fiancée could stay with me with my particular view toward anniversaries, birthdays and holidays, it’s simple: over the 5 1/2 years we’ve been together, we try to keep it all spontaneous.

— Happy whatever day it is you happen to be reading this…

Law/Politics

E-mail to Sen. Lieberman

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Earlier today I sent the following e-mail to Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) regarding his recent proposed legislation, the Terrorist Expatriation Act:

Mr Senator,

According to legislative records, on May 6 you introduced into the Senate the Terrorist Expatriation Act, designated S. 3327 (corresponding bill H.R. 5237 introduced the same day in the House). It has been noted in several forums that this bill, if enacted into law, would give the government the ability to expatriate a citizen on charges already designated as Federal crimes without the benefit of first having those charges tried in a United States District Court and guilt determined by a jury.

Currently in the US code, namely 8 USC 1481(a)(7), a person can be expatriated on several offenses, but expatriation cannot occur unless and until the person is convicted of said offenses. Your proposed legislation would give the Executive Branch the ability to usurp a person’s right to a trial and expatriate said person without the benefit of having a trial to determine, beyond reasonable doubt, the guilt of the person according to the charges specified in the legislation.

Do you intend to amend your legislation to require a criminal conviction before expatriation can occur on the issues listed in your legislation? If that is not your intent, would you vote Nay if such an amendment were proposed? Why or why not on both questions.

If you feel I have misinterpreted what your legislation would require, feel free to clarify.

Thank you,
Kenneth Ballard

If I receive a response from the Senator or his office, I’ll post it.