Analog and Digital

A few years ago I had a conversation about the topic of clocks with a colleague from work. He was a computer guy, and he was making unflattering remarks about how old analog clocks were not as accurate as digital clocks.

“It depends on what you’re using it for,” I said. “There’s no question that it’s easier to be more precise about the time using a digital clock. In truth, though, while the technology is a fascinating accomplishment, I don’t usually need nano-second accuracy."

We talked about that for a bit, then I added, "Time is a measure of change and motion. When I look at an analog clock, I see the moment I’m in, and I am also visually reminded of where I came from earlier in the day, as well as where I’m going. Having this context is useful; digital clocks lose that capacity. My own perspective is that when I need pinpoint precision about the time I go with digital, but otherwise for day-in, day-out living, analog is the better tool.”

My colleague, to his credit, agreed with my point.

Hungry Revolution

The slogan “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity” was a PR maneuver, the dressed-up brainchild of the leftist maniacs of the French Revolution who were possessed by a fratricidal rage and who wanted to destroy the existing social order so as to bring in by force the kind of society that the American left wants to foist on the American people today.

It was never about fair treatment for all, it was only ever about mindless, hopeless, bitter resentment, envy, and rebellion.

The goal was for those who were not in power to seize power and then abuse anyone and everyone who got in their way.

But even that could not work, because the revolution is about thoughtless change and turning, never about progress.

As a witness of the French Revolution observed, "Like Saturn, the Revolution devours its children" (Jaques Mallet du Pan).

14th Amendment

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled several times that the 14th Amendment does not grant birthright citizenship. The 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause was written to establish citizenship for the slaves freed after the Civil War. The amendment was passed to counter the Dred Scott decision, which explicitly held that black slaves were not citizens.

That’s why, for example, the children of diplomats and foreign ministers are not granted citizenship on the basis of being born here. Only since 1982 has there been a claim that birth inside the country automatically conferred birthright. The source for this idea was a footnote to a decision written by Justice William Brennan. The claim is not Constitutional, and it has not been supported by the Supreme Court.

Here are a few examples of relevant Supreme Court cases.

Supreme Court opinion in the Slaughterhouse cases (1873)

"No one can fail to be impressed with the one pervading purpose found in (the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments), lying at the foundation of each, and without which none of them would have been even suggested; we mean the freedom of the slave race, the security and firm establishment of that freedom, and the protection of the newly-made freeman and citizen from the oppressions of those who had formerly exercised unlimited dominion over him."

Supreme Court opinion in Ex Parte Virginia (1879)

"[The 14th Amendment was] primarily designed to give freedom to persons of the African race, prevent their future enslavement, make them citizens, prevent discriminating State legislation against their rights as freemen, and secure to them the ballot."

Supreme Court opinion in Strauder v. West Virginia (1880)

"The 14th Amendment was framed and adopted ... to assure to the colored race the enjoyment of all the civil rights that, under the law, are enjoyed by white persons, and to give to that race the protection of the general government in that enjoyment whenever it should be denied by the States."

Supreme Court opinion in Neal v. Delaware (1880)

"The right secured to the colored man under the 14th Amendment and the civil rights laws is that he shall not be discriminated against solely on account of his race or color."

Supreme Court opinion in Elk v. Wilkins (1884)

John Elk was a Native American who argued that he was a citizen in light of the 14^th Amendment.

The Supreme Court ruled that the 14th amendment did not grant Indians citizenship, saying, "The main object of the opening sentence of the 14th Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside...The evident meaning of (the words, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof") is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance...Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterward, except by being naturalized...no one can become a citizen of a nation without its consent..."

Indians did not become citizens until passage of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.