Over the years, this blog has been somewhat of a scattershot of topics. Initially, it had a very political/civil liberties focus, but that branched into more theoretical topics, such as ethics and philosophy. As I moved into web development, and WordPress, those became topics of greater frequency. And scattered throughout have been posts on music, humor, and even poetry I've written.
You may have noticed that I haven't posted much about politics for some time, and the reason is that politics has become increasingly depressing to me. We live in a society which increasingly embraces constant surveillance, in which we daren't videotape a police officer out of fear of retribution. A society in which we can be sent to prison for shooting a home intruder who invades without a warrant or even warning, just because they happen to have a badge and made a mistake on the address. There are some bright spots. Marriage equality has won. The falling tree may not have hit the ground, but gravity took over years ago and the conclusion is foregone. But in almost all areas, the world has become a scarier and more depressing place.
I also don't write about civil liberties as much, because I have grown increasingly disillusioned and fed up with all sides. It is absolutely wrong to judge someone for the color of their skin, or for the person they love. But that cuts both ways, and as someone who has been judged for being a white male by my supposed allies, my willingness to get involved has decreased over time. Yes, I understand that I have white privilege, and any automatic judgement I get for my skin is nothing compared to the judgement that a transgender person of color gets. But time and time again I see a level of automatic hate coming from the non-cisgendered community that almost approaches the level of hate (that I've fought against) from the fundamentalist religious faction.
Which brings me to my final point. What I HAVE been writing more about recently is code. The beauty of PHP, of HTML, of CSS ... is that they are languages of utter and complete honesty, and logic. If you write something, it's either correct or incorrect. There's no debate, there's no hatred. Certainly people might have differences of opinion on best practices, or what browser to use, but in general it's a much more pleasant area to spend my time in. Additionally, the communities are some of the least judgmental communities that exist. No one cares about who you are or what you look like. If you can write good code, or design great UX, or even just come up with good ideas ... that is all that matters. WordPress contributors are from all around the world, and almost no one brings their societal/cultural baggage with them. Code is king, and I like code.
Showing posts with label Civil Liberties. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Civil Liberties. Show all posts
Sunday, August 17, 2014
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Marriage Equality: The Aftermath
Yesterday, SCOTUS handed out it's decisions on the Defense of Marriage Act, and on Prop 8. They invalidated Prop 8 through technical reasons to avoid a country-wide decision, and fully invalidated the section of DOMA which kept the government from recognizing gay marriages from States which recognize them.
To put in another way, SCOTUS struck down DOMA, in the battle of the acronyms.
Humor aside, these decisions, along with the increasing speed at which States are coming into the marriage equality fold, leads me to the conclusion that full marriage equality is certain, within a matter of decades, if not years. And with this becoming a certainty, recent events are starting to cause me concern.
There was an indecent in the past year where a baker refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, and was sued. This, in my mind, crosses the line from right to wrong. So far in this entire debate, the question has always been, are we trying to be free, or force our beliefs on others. Live and let live is the proper solution when possible, and so for marriage, the proper answer is to let anyone get married. Conservatives are trying to force their beliefs (that gay marriage is wrong) onto others, by controlling them and forcing them not to get married. Marriage equality proponents are therefore in the moral right.
Yet in the case of this baker, it becomes our side which is in the wrong. We are forcing someone else to do an action, namely making a cake, against their will. A couple has no moral right to have a cake made for them, just as conservatives have no moral right to live in a world filled only by people who fit their definition of "good". Because this example has already happened, I worry that in the future similar things will happen. Even more so, I worry that our side, filled with confidence from winning and bitterness from decades of struggle, will over react and become guilty of the same types of abuses of power that were used against them. Will it be considered okay to force a priest/pastor/minister/etc to marry someone? Or to force a Church to allow their building to be used for a marriage? I sincerely hope not, but I worry because I personally know several people who would consider those acceptable.
We are winning the war. Let us not lose our morality in the process.
To put in another way, SCOTUS struck down DOMA, in the battle of the acronyms.
Humor aside, these decisions, along with the increasing speed at which States are coming into the marriage equality fold, leads me to the conclusion that full marriage equality is certain, within a matter of decades, if not years. And with this becoming a certainty, recent events are starting to cause me concern.
There was an indecent in the past year where a baker refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, and was sued. This, in my mind, crosses the line from right to wrong. So far in this entire debate, the question has always been, are we trying to be free, or force our beliefs on others. Live and let live is the proper solution when possible, and so for marriage, the proper answer is to let anyone get married. Conservatives are trying to force their beliefs (that gay marriage is wrong) onto others, by controlling them and forcing them not to get married. Marriage equality proponents are therefore in the moral right.
Yet in the case of this baker, it becomes our side which is in the wrong. We are forcing someone else to do an action, namely making a cake, against their will. A couple has no moral right to have a cake made for them, just as conservatives have no moral right to live in a world filled only by people who fit their definition of "good". Because this example has already happened, I worry that in the future similar things will happen. Even more so, I worry that our side, filled with confidence from winning and bitterness from decades of struggle, will over react and become guilty of the same types of abuses of power that were used against them. Will it be considered okay to force a priest/pastor/minister/etc to marry someone? Or to force a Church to allow their building to be used for a marriage? I sincerely hope not, but I worry because I personally know several people who would consider those acceptable.
We are winning the war. Let us not lose our morality in the process.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Imposing Values
"Lefty liberals only seek to IMPOSE their own moral views on other people, by fiat or social engineering."
I read this as a comment in an article about DOMA today.
Liberals only seek to impose. The problem is that it's opposite of the truth, because in terms of marriage, there are three positions. On one end of the spectrum, there is the position that, we allow heterosexuals to get married, and don't allow homosexuals. In the middle is, we allow both. On the other end is, we allow homosexuals to get married, and don't allow heterosexuals. Those are the three positions.
Personally, I don't like either one, or three, because they are both rather extreme. They involve forcing your own view (that either homo or hetero is bad) on other people, and controlling their actions (not allowing them to get married). The middle position, is that of live and let live. Yet somehow, it's that middle position, of not seeking to control ANYONE, not seeking to impose EITHER moral, that the commenter seemed to think was imposing. Not sure how that works.
It amazes me that the GOP, which prides itself on limited government and staying out of people's lives, tries to impose a specific religious morality on everyone. Or, I wish it amazed me.
I read this as a comment in an article about DOMA today.
Liberals only seek to impose. The problem is that it's opposite of the truth, because in terms of marriage, there are three positions. On one end of the spectrum, there is the position that, we allow heterosexuals to get married, and don't allow homosexuals. In the middle is, we allow both. On the other end is, we allow homosexuals to get married, and don't allow heterosexuals. Those are the three positions.
Personally, I don't like either one, or three, because they are both rather extreme. They involve forcing your own view (that either homo or hetero is bad) on other people, and controlling their actions (not allowing them to get married). The middle position, is that of live and let live. Yet somehow, it's that middle position, of not seeking to control ANYONE, not seeking to impose EITHER moral, that the commenter seemed to think was imposing. Not sure how that works.
It amazes me that the GOP, which prides itself on limited government and staying out of people's lives, tries to impose a specific religious morality on everyone. Or, I wish it amazed me.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Thailand Government Kidnaps US Citizen
I read an article last night about an American citizen who visited Thailand, and got arrested because he had earlier posted on this blog a book that had been banned in Thailand. He posted it when he was in the US, and he was a US citizen. Yet he was arrested an convicted under anti-defamation laws. And the US doesn't seem to be doing anything about it.
This is clearly a violation of free speech. Other counties might not protect that freedom, but the US does. The person in question is a US citizen, and the action in question happened while in the US. Where are the threats from our Government to Thailand? Where are the seal teams? By the very definition of the word, a US citizen has been kidnapped and is being held hostage by another nation, and we aren't doing a thing about it.
I say kidnap rather than arrested because to be arrested, you must be a legitimate police force stopping violations of laws. There is no US law protecting Thailand's king from US citizens saying bad things about him. And Thailand's laws don't apply when they violate the US constitution, at least when it comes to a US citizen. So says me anyway. Obviously Obama doesn't feel the same. He'd rather no offend Thailand than protect the Constitutional rights of US citizens.
I guess kidnapping US citizens isn't in the same category as bombing a building.
This is clearly a violation of free speech. Other counties might not protect that freedom, but the US does. The person in question is a US citizen, and the action in question happened while in the US. Where are the threats from our Government to Thailand? Where are the seal teams? By the very definition of the word, a US citizen has been kidnapped and is being held hostage by another nation, and we aren't doing a thing about it.
I say kidnap rather than arrested because to be arrested, you must be a legitimate police force stopping violations of laws. There is no US law protecting Thailand's king from US citizens saying bad things about him. And Thailand's laws don't apply when they violate the US constitution, at least when it comes to a US citizen. So says me anyway. Obviously Obama doesn't feel the same. He'd rather no offend Thailand than protect the Constitutional rights of US citizens.
I guess kidnapping US citizens isn't in the same category as bombing a building.
Friday, December 2, 2011
What A Week
Well it's been an interesting week so far. I spent the first few days getting used to the idea of having my evenings free again, a state of affairs which I haven't seen for over 2 years. It's quite enjoyable, though my bank account is going to start protesting it soon.
The world around us had an interesting week as well. Youtube finally got it's updated theme rolled out to everyone. I had written an article about it last month when I logged in and saw it. Seems I accidentally accessed it early though, or Google decided to revert everyone. 2 and a half weeks later though, it's back and permanent.
In politics, Newt Gingrich has replaced Hermain Cain as the alternative to Romney. I predicted this after watching him in the first few debates this fall, and actually was a bit confused that he wasn't a front runner to begin with. (I hadn't been following last Spring and Summer, when he decided to go on a cruise to Greece and destroy his campaign.) Every time he opened his mouth he seemed like an elder statesman, never attacking people, never getting tripped up. And finally it's paying off, because he's now up in contention with Romney. He's still got quite a mountain to climb though. His organization is still in tatters, he's got very little money, and he hadn't really experienced the full glare of being a front runner. We'll see how he holds up.
In shear intelligence, I personally think that Gingrich is the best on the field. (He writes science fiction books part time). But do I think he should be president, I don't know. He had an affair with his second wife, but he did admit it. And personally I can separate personal and political aspects of a person's character. A person can be an asshole, yet be extremely competent. Granted, that's just looking at him from a conservative perspective.
I'd never vote for him because of his stance on marriage. Earlier this fall he said "I believe that marriage is between a man and woman. It has been for all of recorded history and I think this [gay marriage] is a temporary aberration that will dissipate". Source Granted, Mitt Romney has come out against gay marriage as well, as have nearly all other GOP candidates ... it's just what they do.
Only Huntsman and Johnson are what I consider rational on the subject. And look where they are. Last place, and below last place.
The world around us had an interesting week as well. Youtube finally got it's updated theme rolled out to everyone. I had written an article about it last month when I logged in and saw it. Seems I accidentally accessed it early though, or Google decided to revert everyone. 2 and a half weeks later though, it's back and permanent.
In politics, Newt Gingrich has replaced Hermain Cain as the alternative to Romney. I predicted this after watching him in the first few debates this fall, and actually was a bit confused that he wasn't a front runner to begin with. (I hadn't been following last Spring and Summer, when he decided to go on a cruise to Greece and destroy his campaign.) Every time he opened his mouth he seemed like an elder statesman, never attacking people, never getting tripped up. And finally it's paying off, because he's now up in contention with Romney. He's still got quite a mountain to climb though. His organization is still in tatters, he's got very little money, and he hadn't really experienced the full glare of being a front runner. We'll see how he holds up.In shear intelligence, I personally think that Gingrich is the best on the field. (He writes science fiction books part time). But do I think he should be president, I don't know. He had an affair with his second wife, but he did admit it. And personally I can separate personal and political aspects of a person's character. A person can be an asshole, yet be extremely competent. Granted, that's just looking at him from a conservative perspective.
I'd never vote for him because of his stance on marriage. Earlier this fall he said "I believe that marriage is between a man and woman. It has been for all of recorded history and I think this [gay marriage] is a temporary aberration that will dissipate". Source Granted, Mitt Romney has come out against gay marriage as well, as have nearly all other GOP candidates ... it's just what they do.
Only Huntsman and Johnson are what I consider rational on the subject. And look where they are. Last place, and below last place.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Christianity in Schools
New Heights Middle School, Jefferson, South Carolina. The school brings in a Christian group to speak to the Children to convert them to Christianity.
This is a public school, paid for by money forcibly taken by the government from all citizens, even non-Christian ones. We also have a Constitution that prohibits the government from endorsing one religion. Yet here it is doing just that. The ACLU reposted the video that the Christian group put up originally.
One thing that struck me was a comment in the comments section of the article that the ACLU wrote about the issue.
"I applaud the school for their courage! They are indeed promoting civil rights for there is a direct correlation between the spread of the Gospel and the rise of civil liberty."
Interesting how the ideals of liberty and civilian, non-theocratic government arose in the 1700s with the rise of philosophy and beginnings of universal atheism. Also interesting that the countries with the highest civil liberties are the ones that have the most religious freedom. And another interesting point is that the ones who've been most consistently fighting civil liberties in our own country, from slavery in the 1860s through the civil rights movement of the 1960s, and now into the issues with gay rights ... are Christians.
Just to note of course, not all Christians are homophobic bigots who want to force their morality onto everyone. But if you look at people trying to force morality on others, chances are those people are Christians.
Edit:
I saw this video yesterday and found it interesting, but not enough to warrant a post about it. But it's on similar topic so I'll go ahead and link it here as well:
This is a public school, paid for by money forcibly taken by the government from all citizens, even non-Christian ones. We also have a Constitution that prohibits the government from endorsing one religion. Yet here it is doing just that. The ACLU reposted the video that the Christian group put up originally.
One thing that struck me was a comment in the comments section of the article that the ACLU wrote about the issue.
"I applaud the school for their courage! They are indeed promoting civil rights for there is a direct correlation between the spread of the Gospel and the rise of civil liberty."
Interesting how the ideals of liberty and civilian, non-theocratic government arose in the 1700s with the rise of philosophy and beginnings of universal atheism. Also interesting that the countries with the highest civil liberties are the ones that have the most religious freedom. And another interesting point is that the ones who've been most consistently fighting civil liberties in our own country, from slavery in the 1860s through the civil rights movement of the 1960s, and now into the issues with gay rights ... are Christians.
Just to note of course, not all Christians are homophobic bigots who want to force their morality onto everyone. But if you look at people trying to force morality on others, chances are those people are Christians.
Edit:
I saw this video yesterday and found it interesting, but not enough to warrant a post about it. But it's on similar topic so I'll go ahead and link it here as well:
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Congratulations, New York!
New York became the newest state to embrace marriage equality for all, last night. Gov. Cuomo still has to sign the bill, but he has said he will, and it has now passed the full Assembly.
My favorite part of this entire situation was Republican Roy McDonald, who voted for the bill and defended his position by saying "fuck it, I don't care what you think. I'm trying to do the right thing".
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Lack of Posting
I haven't been posting much in the past couple weeks, for which I appologize. This week is finals week, and it's been pretty intense. I'm currently half done with exams, got 2 more tomorrow before I'm free. For now, I'll leave you with this.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Chick Fil-A and Indiana University
I got an email from Change.org today, asking me to sign a petition to remove Chick Fil-A from the campus of Indiana University.
By using Government, in the form of the University administration, to ban a business, we open the door to thought control. The majority is fickle, and by giving the majority the power to legislate what is right and wrong, we set a dangerous precedent. This petition, if successful, will do just that. We will be punishing the owners of Chick Fil-A because they think homosexuality is wrong. Their opinion I don't agree with. But they should be allowed to have it, without being threatened by the government. If we allow suppression of dissent, we are no longer free.
Petition Source
Students at Indiana University South Bend (IUSB) are standing up and challenging the presence of Chick-fil-A on campus, spreading the word that Chick-fil-A has given more than $1.1 million to support anti-gay organizations that oppose marriage equality and promote “curing” gay people through discredited “conversion therapy.”I don't support the organizations that Chick Fil-A has been contributing to. In fact I actively oppose them, going so far a to donate money to organizations on the opposite end, and going to equal-rights protests. I'm also a fan of boycotting as a method to express disapproval to companies, because you are under no ethical obligation to do business with a company. What I don't support though, is this petition.
There’s just one problem. IUSB’s Chancellor, Una Mae Reck, is refusing to act. Despite overwhelming support from students and faculty to remove Chick-fil-A’s food from campus, Reck has ignored student resolutions, ignored faculty senate resolutions, and even abruptly walked out of a meeting where student leaders were waiting to discuss the issue.
By using Government, in the form of the University administration, to ban a business, we open the door to thought control. The majority is fickle, and by giving the majority the power to legislate what is right and wrong, we set a dangerous precedent. This petition, if successful, will do just that. We will be punishing the owners of Chick Fil-A because they think homosexuality is wrong. Their opinion I don't agree with. But they should be allowed to have it, without being threatened by the government. If we allow suppression of dissent, we are no longer free.
Petition Source
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Koran Burning
In Florida several days ago, a small Christian church burned a Koran. Following that, large protests erupted across the middle east. One protest in northern Afghanistan ended with the mob overrunning a UN complex, killing and beheading, leaving 11 dead.
World leaders have begun condemning the violence, which is good. However, at the same time, they began to condemn the Koran burning, some going so far as to say that the Pastor responsible for it was to blame for the violence.
In America, we are guaranteed freedom of speech by the Constitution. That means freedom to make fun of people or things, and freedom to disrespect. A book is a physical object, and a piece of property. Assuming the Pastor acquired the Koran legally, then he is allowed to burn it. The pastor is in no way responsible for the deaths of the UN workers. Zero, nada, nothing. The people responsible for their deaths are the people that killed them.
Let me draw a parallel. Imagine an elementary school playground. The playground bully (Muslim extremists) decides one say that the slide is his and his alone. However, another child (Christian pastor in Florida) wants to slide. The bully tells the child not to, threatening violence if he does. The child refuses to stop, and the bully pulls out a knife and kills him. Now the teacher (Obama) comes and says, that killing is wrong! But, the child shouldn't have defied the boy in the first place! They are both equally wrong!
What we have here is the exact same situation, on a larger scale. America is afraid to say anything bad about Islam, because Muslim extremists threaten to hurt us if we do. Examples of this are: Draw Muhammad Day: canceled because the girl got numerous death threats. Muhammad on South Park: censored because Comedy Central got death threats. Now this latest fiasco. This time, he went ahead and did it. He defied them, actually disrespected Islam! Like any bully, the Muslim extremists in Afghanistan couldn't let their bluff be called, so they stormed a UN complex and beheaded people. (Note, though the crowd was 20,000 people, the city it took place in has a population of 375,000, which means that only 5% of the people were involved. I am not blaming Muslims in general, just the extremists among them who think violence is acceptable).
The US's response should be a swift execution of the people responsible. But instead, while we do condemn the bully with words, we equally condemn the ... person who stood up to the bully? Whaaaattt?
Edit:
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the action of burning a holy book is a good thing. It's not, in fact it's a jerk move. However, by condemning it, Obama is setting a double standard. He doesn't condemn people who burn Bibles, does he? And condemning both at the same time implies they are the two extremes (true) and both equally bad (not true). Killing people is far worse than burning a book.
World leaders have begun condemning the violence, which is good. However, at the same time, they began to condemn the Koran burning, some going so far as to say that the Pastor responsible for it was to blame for the violence.
In America, we are guaranteed freedom of speech by the Constitution. That means freedom to make fun of people or things, and freedom to disrespect. A book is a physical object, and a piece of property. Assuming the Pastor acquired the Koran legally, then he is allowed to burn it. The pastor is in no way responsible for the deaths of the UN workers. Zero, nada, nothing. The people responsible for their deaths are the people that killed them.
Let me draw a parallel. Imagine an elementary school playground. The playground bully (Muslim extremists) decides one say that the slide is his and his alone. However, another child (Christian pastor in Florida) wants to slide. The bully tells the child not to, threatening violence if he does. The child refuses to stop, and the bully pulls out a knife and kills him. Now the teacher (Obama) comes and says, that killing is wrong! But, the child shouldn't have defied the boy in the first place! They are both equally wrong!
What we have here is the exact same situation, on a larger scale. America is afraid to say anything bad about Islam, because Muslim extremists threaten to hurt us if we do. Examples of this are: Draw Muhammad Day: canceled because the girl got numerous death threats. Muhammad on South Park: censored because Comedy Central got death threats. Now this latest fiasco. This time, he went ahead and did it. He defied them, actually disrespected Islam! Like any bully, the Muslim extremists in Afghanistan couldn't let their bluff be called, so they stormed a UN complex and beheaded people. (Note, though the crowd was 20,000 people, the city it took place in has a population of 375,000, which means that only 5% of the people were involved. I am not blaming Muslims in general, just the extremists among them who think violence is acceptable).
The US's response should be a swift execution of the people responsible. But instead, while we do condemn the bully with words, we equally condemn the ... person who stood up to the bully? Whaaaattt?
Edit:
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the action of burning a holy book is a good thing. It's not, in fact it's a jerk move. However, by condemning it, Obama is setting a double standard. He doesn't condemn people who burn Bibles, does he? And condemning both at the same time implies they are the two extremes (true) and both equally bad (not true). Killing people is far worse than burning a book.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Britain's Government Dictating Beliefs
I just read about a situation in Britain. Short summary, a foster-parent couple was trying to adopt a child, and it was blocked because they hold anti-gay views, and said that they would teach them to any child they raised. [Source] Google News it for confirmation, this was one of the more neutral articles I could find.
It's a pretty gray area, there are good arguments on both sides. We are violating the parent's right to teach their children, and there has to be a good reason. Would you want the Grand Dragon of the KKK teaching a foster child? I'd hope you say no. Would you want one of Hitler's top echelon as a foster parent? No. The question really is, where do we draw the line? Does their belief that homosexuality is wrong constitute enough of a danger that we have to intervene? That is what's important in this case. The court obviously thinks so.
When I read about it, my first reaction was, damn right. I'm a strong proponent of equal rights, and so teaching that homosexuality is wrong is something I disagree with. However, after a moment of actually thinking about it, I realized how wrong that reaction was. It's NOT wrong because it's anti-Christian. It's wrong because it's anti-anything. This opens the door to government dictating what beliefs and opinions are correct .. thought control, basically. That is a VERY dangerous thing.
Also,I have to wonder why Christian groups (which have been the loudest ones protesting) are crying foul. I can understand civil libertarians protesting this. But NOM is right now protesting Virginia's new foster care law, which states that parents can't be chosen based on sexual orientation, because it'll make it easier for gay couples to adopt. We can't have it both ways, allowed to say that people can't be parents because they are gay, but can be if they are anti-gay.
Though I disagree with this couple's beliefs, letting the State decide what opinions and beliefs people are allowed to have is much more dangerous than the indoctrination of one child, and so this ruling is wrong.
It's a pretty gray area, there are good arguments on both sides. We are violating the parent's right to teach their children, and there has to be a good reason. Would you want the Grand Dragon of the KKK teaching a foster child? I'd hope you say no. Would you want one of Hitler's top echelon as a foster parent? No. The question really is, where do we draw the line? Does their belief that homosexuality is wrong constitute enough of a danger that we have to intervene? That is what's important in this case. The court obviously thinks so.
When I read about it, my first reaction was, damn right. I'm a strong proponent of equal rights, and so teaching that homosexuality is wrong is something I disagree with. However, after a moment of actually thinking about it, I realized how wrong that reaction was. It's NOT wrong because it's anti-Christian. It's wrong because it's anti-anything. This opens the door to government dictating what beliefs and opinions are correct .. thought control, basically. That is a VERY dangerous thing.
Also,I have to wonder why Christian groups (which have been the loudest ones protesting) are crying foul. I can understand civil libertarians protesting this. But NOM is right now protesting Virginia's new foster care law, which states that parents can't be chosen based on sexual orientation, because it'll make it easier for gay couples to adopt. We can't have it both ways, allowed to say that people can't be parents because they are gay, but can be if they are anti-gay.
Though I disagree with this couple's beliefs, letting the State decide what opinions and beliefs people are allowed to have is much more dangerous than the indoctrination of one child, and so this ruling is wrong.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
A Libertarian Defense of Laws Requiring Employers Not To Hire On The Basis of Sexual Orientation
Under Federal law, it is illegal to hire or not hire someone on the basis of that person's race or gender. However, with the exception of a few States, it's perfectly legal to make that decision on the basis of sexual orientation.
As a libertarian, I believe that because they take away personal freedom, all laws are inherently bad. Thus, each must cause a significant positive effect to offset that. A law that makes murder illegal is quite obviously good overall, because the protection to life it provides far outweighs the loss of freedom. Laws forcing non-discriminatory hiring though, are much more gray. Lets first examine the more general set of laws, before looking at the specific Sexual Orientation category.
Negative Effects:
Loss of freedom ... If I start a business, shouldn't I be allowed to decide who I want to work with? Losing the ability to choose who you works with in a company that you yourself founded is absolutely a negative effect. It's government interference that controls your life.
Promotion of bigotry ... The fact that we have these laws means that the majority of people are against discrimination. If discrimination was legal, then the bigotry would no longer be hidden, and would actually help kill off the bigotry faster. Example: Company A hires a homosexual man because he's more productive than the other candidates. Company B hires the less productive heterosexual man instead. As time goes by, companies that discriminate would cripple themselves, and hopefully go out of business, thereby removing bigoted people instead of forcing them to hide.
Positive Effects:
Fairness ... In the short term, people who are discriminated against have a much better chance of getting a job.
Global competitiveness ... Discriminatory hiring practices cripple a company in the long term is it is competing with companies that don't hire on the basis of performance. By forcing US companies not to discriminate, we boost our competitiveness globally.
Good Feelings ... Discrimination just feels wrong, very unpolitically correct. It makes people feel good to know that the the US is a progressive nation that enforces fairness.
Overall
I'm divided on the anti-discrimination laws. There are good and bad effects. When they were first introduced, the situation clearly called for them, because while overall in the US, most people were against discrimination, in many States, especially in the South, the majority of people were all for it, which meant that the only way to give African American's a chance was by forcing it.
In 2011 though, the problem is much diminished, and so I feel there would be a good argument for getting rid of all of them.
Sexual Orientation
All of the above is non-consequential, because the laws that already exist will never be repeal .. not in our lifetimes anyway. They are too firmly entrenched in our culture. That said, I fully support adding sexual orientation to the list or race, gender, etc, because right now, women and african americans have protections that homosexuals do not. It might be beneficial to remove ALL of the anti-discrimination laws, but it's not fair to have them for Some groups, and not others.
As a libertarian, I believe that because they take away personal freedom, all laws are inherently bad. Thus, each must cause a significant positive effect to offset that. A law that makes murder illegal is quite obviously good overall, because the protection to life it provides far outweighs the loss of freedom. Laws forcing non-discriminatory hiring though, are much more gray. Lets first examine the more general set of laws, before looking at the specific Sexual Orientation category.
Negative Effects:
Loss of freedom ... If I start a business, shouldn't I be allowed to decide who I want to work with? Losing the ability to choose who you works with in a company that you yourself founded is absolutely a negative effect. It's government interference that controls your life.
Promotion of bigotry ... The fact that we have these laws means that the majority of people are against discrimination. If discrimination was legal, then the bigotry would no longer be hidden, and would actually help kill off the bigotry faster. Example: Company A hires a homosexual man because he's more productive than the other candidates. Company B hires the less productive heterosexual man instead. As time goes by, companies that discriminate would cripple themselves, and hopefully go out of business, thereby removing bigoted people instead of forcing them to hide.
Positive Effects:
Fairness ... In the short term, people who are discriminated against have a much better chance of getting a job.
Global competitiveness ... Discriminatory hiring practices cripple a company in the long term is it is competing with companies that don't hire on the basis of performance. By forcing US companies not to discriminate, we boost our competitiveness globally.
Good Feelings ... Discrimination just feels wrong, very unpolitically correct. It makes people feel good to know that the the US is a progressive nation that enforces fairness.
Overall
I'm divided on the anti-discrimination laws. There are good and bad effects. When they were first introduced, the situation clearly called for them, because while overall in the US, most people were against discrimination, in many States, especially in the South, the majority of people were all for it, which meant that the only way to give African American's a chance was by forcing it.
In 2011 though, the problem is much diminished, and so I feel there would be a good argument for getting rid of all of them.
Sexual Orientation
All of the above is non-consequential, because the laws that already exist will never be repeal .. not in our lifetimes anyway. They are too firmly entrenched in our culture. That said, I fully support adding sexual orientation to the list or race, gender, etc, because right now, women and african americans have protections that homosexuals do not. It might be beneficial to remove ALL of the anti-discrimination laws, but it's not fair to have them for Some groups, and not others.
Friday, November 5, 2010
Dems Lose Big, Theocrats Take Power
Well, the midterm elections are over, and as you are probably aware, the Republicans have taken control of the House by a massive margin, and nearly evened out the Senate. What does this mean for the majority of the Country? Not much really. The GOP is going to try to repeal healthcare, and is going to fail because the don't control the Senate. They are going to try to work on the economy, and probably fail because at this point, government interference isn't going to do much. Lastly, they are going to fight marriage equality, because they know their time is limited. Why? Age.
The Republican base is old, averaging over 45 years of age. The Democrats range more, but if you look at the 2008 election, when the Dems won huge, it was the younger vote, 18-30, that really swayed the count. Younger voters are more likely to be Democrats, and this means that in the next 20 years, the GOP faces a huge problem, as their base literally begins to die off around them.
This matches the typical idea of young people being more liberal, being the voices of change in societies. Look at marriage equality, for example. The main group that is against it is older white Christians. The demographic most likely to support marriage equality are people under the age of 30, as shown by the 2009 Gallup poll.
The question then, is how much damage can these aging theocrats do before they kick the bucket. We've got at least two difficult years ahead of us. The only bright spot is that they have no public mandate to go after marriage equality. NOM may enjoy talking about how they have stopped the wave of marriage equality and the next 2 years will be regaining ground, but the truth is that the majority of Republicans were elected because of economic issues. The tea party movement, largely credited with fueling the so called conservative wave, shied away from commenting on marriage rights at all, for fear of alienating independents who are more socially liberal. If the Republicans DO try to push for any major legislation that is anti marriage equality, we're going to see a large backlash at them. Because of that, they'll probably be hesitant to do anything direct. They'll definitely stop all forward progress though.
In summary, Republicans now have control, and they oppose marriage equality. They'll be hesitant about bringing up any direct conflict on the issue though, because they were elected on a mandate to fix the economy, not restore old values. So, we will be unlikely to see any large ground lost. On the same key though, it will be difficult to gain any ground, and so the next 2 years are going to be a waiting game. If we can make it to 2012, hopefully the public will have turned again, and we can resume progress with a Democratic congress.
The Republican base is old, averaging over 45 years of age. The Democrats range more, but if you look at the 2008 election, when the Dems won huge, it was the younger vote, 18-30, that really swayed the count. Younger voters are more likely to be Democrats, and this means that in the next 20 years, the GOP faces a huge problem, as their base literally begins to die off around them.
This matches the typical idea of young people being more liberal, being the voices of change in societies. Look at marriage equality, for example. The main group that is against it is older white Christians. The demographic most likely to support marriage equality are people under the age of 30, as shown by the 2009 Gallup poll.
The question then, is how much damage can these aging theocrats do before they kick the bucket. We've got at least two difficult years ahead of us. The only bright spot is that they have no public mandate to go after marriage equality. NOM may enjoy talking about how they have stopped the wave of marriage equality and the next 2 years will be regaining ground, but the truth is that the majority of Republicans were elected because of economic issues. The tea party movement, largely credited with fueling the so called conservative wave, shied away from commenting on marriage rights at all, for fear of alienating independents who are more socially liberal. If the Republicans DO try to push for any major legislation that is anti marriage equality, we're going to see a large backlash at them. Because of that, they'll probably be hesitant to do anything direct. They'll definitely stop all forward progress though.
In summary, Republicans now have control, and they oppose marriage equality. They'll be hesitant about bringing up any direct conflict on the issue though, because they were elected on a mandate to fix the economy, not restore old values. So, we will be unlikely to see any large ground lost. On the same key though, it will be difficult to gain any ground, and so the next 2 years are going to be a waiting game. If we can make it to 2012, hopefully the public will have turned again, and we can resume progress with a Democratic congress.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Masturbation = Adultery ... Ohs Nos!
Christine O'Donnell is running fora 4 year term in the US Senate, in a special election to replace Biden, who left to become Vice President. She's tea party backed to the core, and recently won the republican primary over Mike Castle, (the RNC endorsed candidate). Her views:
Abortion: Against. This is expected, she's a Republican.
Economic Policy: Spend less money. That doesn't sound to bad, okay.
Environment: Block cap & trade. Debatable, but okay.
Gun Rights: Second Amendment protects individual rights.
Health Care: Repeal
Masturbation: It's a sin and a form of adultery .... wait, what?
When asked about her belief on masturbation, she replied:
Sounds good, right? She's matured, and will base her decisions on the Constitution. Ehh, not really good. StudentLiberal over at Classically Liberal wrote a very good analysis. He says:
If God is real, AND God really talks to people in a physical sense, then a Theocracy could be viable. If either of those two aren't true though, then a Theocracy is a very dangerous form of Autocracy, and nothing more. That is the danger we face when allowing people like O'Donnell into office. She says that she bases all decisions on what she feels God wants her to do, and we have an example of what she believes God's morality is. Is making Masturbation wrong and illegal what we really want? Be careful, Delaware, what you elect.
Abortion: Against. This is expected, she's a Republican.
Economic Policy: Spend less money. That doesn't sound to bad, okay.
Environment: Block cap & trade. Debatable, but okay.
Gun Rights: Second Amendment protects individual rights.
Health Care: Repeal
Masturbation: It's a sin and a form of adultery .... wait, what?
When asked about her belief on masturbation, she replied:
Yes, I have my personal beliefs," she said when asked about her views. "These are questions from statements I made over 15 years ago. I was in my 20s and very excited and passionate about my new found faith. But I can assure you, my faith has matured. And when I go to Washington D.C., it will be the Constitution on which I base all of my decisions, not my personal beliefs.
Sounds good, right? She's matured, and will base her decisions on the Constitution. Ehh, not really good. StudentLiberal over at Classically Liberal wrote a very good analysis. He says:
Let us go through this statement to see what she is actually saying and what she isn't saying. She says the statements were made when she was young. At that time she had a "new found faith," which means a belief system she adopted wholesale from dead books without any intellectual scrutiny. But "I can assure you, my faith has matured."The problem with electing someone like this is that there is no way to know they won't put their own morality in front of the Constitution, or in front of your personal rights. She says elsewhere that "as someone who prays about every decision I make, I felt like God was leading me" [1].
What does that mean? Previously she held beliefs without reasons, on the basis of faith. Now she has a mature faith, which means what? How does the mature faith differ from the youthful faith? Faith is faith, it is still not reason. Was she previously a young fool but is now just an old fool? All she said is her faith is mature. People say that they have "faith" when they merely adopt a view without rational reasoning behind it. They hold the belief on the basis of "faith." All this does is tell us how she comes to her beliefs, not what those beliefs are. And both are rather critical here.
She does not indicate at all that her views on masturbation, sex and abstinence have changed at all. In fact, she rather strongly hints that she has NOT abandoned her beliefs whatsoever. She begins her statement saying: "Yes, I have my personal beliefs." This is present tense, not past tense. At best she is hinting that she now understands that there are other ways for her to express the same viewpoints without creating a firestorm. She has not repudiated her "personal beliefs" nor has she said that they have changed, only that her "faith" is now more mature....
The first half of her statement is meant to address the issue of her past beliefs in contrast with present day beliefs. But nowhere does it actually indicate that these beliefs are now different, only that she has a more mature faith—and what that means is never explained by O'Donnell.
The second half of her statement is meant to address how she would vote on issues. It too avoids indicating anything of substance. She says that she will base all her decisions on the Constitution. Whoopee! What a meaningless statement!
If there is one thing that most politicians agree upon it is that they all think they vote according to the Constitution. Believing the Constitution is like believing the Bible. It means nothing. Why is that?
We can all debate what the Constitution means and we each come to our own conclusions. O'Donnell can happily vote for moralistic legislation, if offered the chance, and still proclaim she is within the Constitution as she sees it. The problem is that we have no idea how she sees the Constitution.
If God is real, AND God really talks to people in a physical sense, then a Theocracy could be viable. If either of those two aren't true though, then a Theocracy is a very dangerous form of Autocracy, and nothing more. That is the danger we face when allowing people like O'Donnell into office. She says that she bases all decisions on what she feels God wants her to do, and we have an example of what she believes God's morality is. Is making Masturbation wrong and illegal what we really want? Be careful, Delaware, what you elect.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Profiling Passengers - Wrong?
I was watching C-Span yesterday morning, and one of the guests was Nihad Awad, director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which is a group dealing with American Muslims, and the relations between America and the international Muslim community. Awad has been the Executive Director since 1994, and was speaking yesterday about racial and religious profiling.
There have been a few instances of security officials stopping Muslims, but religious profiling isn't US policy. Awad was making the point that the profiling will only serve the alienate Muslims that don't hate the US yet. IE, our own citizens. And while he makes a valid point, it doesn't change the facts. Fact, all terrorist attacks of the last 15 years have been Muslim extremists. Fact: They were young men.
When we are looking for White Supremacists, do we go to Harlem? No, it doesn't make sense. It's logical to scrutinize young Muslim men more than other passengers, because they are more likely to be a threat. Profiling will save time and money, and increase our chances of actually catching a terrorist.
That said, profiling is still not right. Frankly, and I know that I'm going to be disagreed with, none of this security is right. Controlling who gets on and off a private plane, that's not the government's place. We shouldn't be wasting money on any of this. Bin laden did much much more with 911 than the innitial effects. How much money has been lost due to the extra security across the country? The time lost? The threat of a terrorist attack is bad, but it's not worth the loss of civil rights. Religious profiling .... doing nothing for the last hour of the flight (including the bathroom! even for children!) .... possibly having to register travel plans and reasons for traveling ... it's not worth the small bit of extra safety. And it's giving the government way to much power.
Remember the Nazis? "Your papers, please"
There have been a few instances of security officials stopping Muslims, but religious profiling isn't US policy. Awad was making the point that the profiling will only serve the alienate Muslims that don't hate the US yet. IE, our own citizens. And while he makes a valid point, it doesn't change the facts. Fact, all terrorist attacks of the last 15 years have been Muslim extremists. Fact: They were young men.
When we are looking for White Supremacists, do we go to Harlem? No, it doesn't make sense. It's logical to scrutinize young Muslim men more than other passengers, because they are more likely to be a threat. Profiling will save time and money, and increase our chances of actually catching a terrorist.
That said, profiling is still not right. Frankly, and I know that I'm going to be disagreed with, none of this security is right. Controlling who gets on and off a private plane, that's not the government's place. We shouldn't be wasting money on any of this. Bin laden did much much more with 911 than the innitial effects. How much money has been lost due to the extra security across the country? The time lost? The threat of a terrorist attack is bad, but it's not worth the loss of civil rights. Religious profiling .... doing nothing for the last hour of the flight (including the bathroom! even for children!) .... possibly having to register travel plans and reasons for traveling ... it's not worth the small bit of extra safety. And it's giving the government way to much power.
Remember the Nazis? "Your papers, please"
Saturday, January 2, 2010
New TSA Regulations
Following the attempted bombing of Flight 253, the TSA in their infinite wisdom has declared new regulations on all of us. The short version is, you aren't allowed to do anything during the last hour of your flight except breathe.
No getting up to use the bathroom (even little kids), no laptop computers, no food, no drinks. You can't even read a book. Now, I'm not going to get into how many civil liberties this violates, because the government doesn't care about such trifling concerns. The Patriot Act started it, and Obama has continued, if not gotten worse. All I'll say is that the Founding Fathers (after being taught was a plane was) would declare a revolution was needed against this Tyranny.
However, there is hope. The security measures are like a magnet on a slippery refrigerator. Constantly slipping down, and then every once in a while shoved back up suddenly. Things will calm down and the regulations will slowly be relaxed, because people don't really care. Even the TSA doesn't care. They are only doing this, in a knee jerk reaction, to curry public favor. To try and look as though they are Doing something, and damn the rest of us for wanting to not be controlled.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
