05.15.12
Posted in 2¢, Liberty at 11:16 by RjZ
Forget what you think about homosexual marriage, Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, is right. Obama may have sealed his fate as a one term president by admitting he is for equal rights for all citizens.
- Votes in several states, not just fly-over states but California, have time and again gone against marriage-equality.
- Evangelical voters weren’t motivated by Mitt Romney. Now they have a reason to be.
- Conservatives can simultaneously claim to be more focused on the real issues facing Americans (the economy) and still claim to be the only reliable support of conservative social values.
All the posters about being on the wrong side of history won’t do much good if Obama wins by a landslide in liberal states and loses everywhere else.
Instead of being on the right side of history, perhaps we should be asking how to convince the religious conservatives that they, too, benefit from a country that is not a theocracy. That the government deciding who should and should not be married is exactly not the place to stick its nose.
![]()
37 views Permalink
(no ratings yet, click a square to vote)
Loading ...
05.11.12
Posted in 2¢, Society at 13:45 by RjZ
Obama brought gay marriage right back to the forefront of U.S. political discourse when he took a stand and admitted favorable opinion. As I’ve written before, I am no more for homosexual marriages than heterosexual ones. The government ought to get out of the marriage-business as it is a religious construct which has no place in a government which separates belief from state.
During the Bush II era, I had believed that the focus on homosexuals was simply a ploy by the religious right and conservatives to gin up support for their politicians. It is almost surprising we’re still talking about this issue, after the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Limiting the rights and privileges of legal marriages only to heterosexual couples is unfair prejudice and the president is particularly brave to stand up to those who would force their religious opinions on everyone else. Still, the president has suggested no policy changes to accompany his admission. North Carolina has banned the practice and Colorado is working on passing same-sex partnerships, all unperturbed by the president or the presidential race.
There is no denying that, even in the face of an ongoing war, thwarted terrorist attacks, a failing Euro, and struggling U.S. economy, that gay marriage is still a hot-button issue. For me it is merely further proof of how useless the Bible is when governing a country and a brilliant example of the value of church-state separation. Christians, many of whom are the most angered by Mr. Obama’s statements, can’t even agree among themselves. “When you read the Bible, you can find justification for almost anything, including slavery, the subjection of women and an argument that the sun actually revolves around the earth” vs. “the Bible continues to have authority, and [that] we are obligated to submit ourselves, our wills and our desires to it”
Let me know when they get their story straight. In the mean time, let’s keep expanding freedoms where ever possible. Seems to me, that’s how Jesus would have wanted it.
![]()
68 views Permalink
(no ratings yet, click a square to vote)
Loading ...
04.12.12
Posted in 2¢ at 15:45 by RjZ
And they say only liberals worry about being politically correct. Conservatives are up in arms because a democratic strategist characterized Ann Romney as “not working a day in her life.” Oh, here we go…of course she’s worked! She’s raised children! How can you evil liberal elitists not acknowledge that raising kids is the most important thing in our society?
You know, it is damn important. And alright, maybe she misspoke, but um, are they saying that it isn’t clear what she meant. She hasn’t worked for a salary. It’s important, but not the same thing. And by the way, most Americans with kids have to actually manage to do both, work, and raise kids, work at home raising kids.
Or are conservatives suggesting that the occupy Wall Street crew is “working” by hanging around occupying and being the people’s megaphone?
![]()
69 views Permalink
(no ratings yet, click a square to vote)
Loading ...
03.30.12
Posted in 2¢ at 15:24 by RjZ
I’m coming clean. This isn’t the only place I write. I’ve been blogging businessy things over at Eye On Technology for a little while now. I didn’t mean to hold out on you. I just thought, I dunno, you might not be interested. Traveling Hypothesis supposed be about travel and things I’ve learned by traveling. It’s already scattered enough. But, you know, sometimes other stuff pops into my head, and I think another ten readers might care.
I thought you might find this one interesting. I suggest a common thread between Microsoft software, the Toyota Camry, and the super-size meal. Think of it as Freakonomics’ long lost little brother. Without the Ph.D. in economics.
Go read it and maybe leave a comment. It’ll make my website look more professional. Or not.
![]()
53 views Permalink
(1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5) Loading ...
03.13.12
Posted in 2¢ at 9:55 by RjZ
That’s what Clarence had to say about his gig at SXSW conference this week. Clarence is a human WiFi hotspot. and he’s making people uncomfortable.
It’s not Clarence, really, but the marketing company who came up with the idea to outfit some local homeless volunteers with WiFi transmitters and have them walk around the crowded SXSW conference offering up extra bandwidth for the digerati. Apparently, folks found this exploitive.
I assume it’s exploitive because the folks are homeless. Had the job been open to anyone, and people been able to choose this service based only on its availability without any thought to who is offering it, that would have been normal. As the linked article and commenters point out, that’d be like a waiter who is paid very little to work 15 hours a day in the hopes of tips.
But no one hires (as far as I know–hey this may be a marketing opportunity) strictly homeless waiters. Still, people are hired on their demographics alone. I don’t think Hooters will give me a job even if I show up in bright orange hot pants (even though I have been told I have nice legs, I think they’re a bit hairy for the requisite Hooters stockings).
Hiring based on characteristics to promote something is an accepted, if morally shaky, practice. This is no different. If it truly is exploitive, then at least it creates real benefits, raises awareness, and might even help create connections between those it exploits and those who use the service. I am not so sure Hooters can make any of these claims.
![]()
118 views Permalink
(no ratings yet, click a square to vote)
Loading ...
02.21.12
Posted in 2¢ at 12:47 by RjZ
A long but worthy read. The New York Times offers no answers as to why, for example, the conservative south relies more on government handouts, while complaining loudest about the government.
People won’t resist government handouts, arguing that they have already paid for them, yet they want the government to stop collecting so much taxes to cover future demand. In typical tragedy of the commons fashion, citizens use common goods and services to death with no concern about their impact on resources, yet they will vigorously protect what they believe to belong to them or their tribe.
Perhaps U.S. citizens differ today from fifty years ago, not only in our perceived need to have a cell phone and cable television, but also our looser knit sense of community. Where the internet brings people closer together, a farther reaching media has shown us the actions of those we have no connection with, many of them engaging in decidely anti-social behavior, like rampant law suits and fraudulent medical claims. It make us feel that if we don’t do likewise, we’re not getting our fair share.
Economists may have an answer where politicians do not. We need a tighter cost signal. We must recognize the cost of our actions on us, our tribe, and our nation. Instead of complaining the government is spending too much, responsible conservative politicians must remind us that we are spending too much. But that’s hardly a good way to get votes, is it?
![]()
89 views Permalink
(no ratings yet, click a square to vote)
Loading ...
02.07.12
Posted in 2¢ at 16:36 by RjZ
Disappointed in a federal appeals court ruling against California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage The Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative Christian legal foundation said:
“No court should undercut the democratic process by taking the power to preserve marriage out of the hands of the people.”
Wrong. That is exactly what appeals courts and especially the supreme court are supposed to do. The democratic process of the Alliance Defense Fund goes by another name: mob rule. Fortunately the democratic process we have here in the United States protects minorities, ensuring that they receive equal protection even when the legislative process has denied them those rights.
The populace can vote to restrict the rights of citizens as they have done many times in the past. Japanese can be interned in prison camps, suspected communists can be prosecuted and smeared, and African American citizens can even be denied a space on a park bench. All of these things can happen through a part of the democratic process. Fortunately, the courts can step in to undo those harms. They go against the prevailing view of the majority and, in doing so, protect the minority who, too, are full citizens in our society and deserve all the same rights and privileges. And when judges “undercut the democratic process” they are actually performing the final and critical step in the democratic process. They are protecting our constitutional rights even if the mob thinks (usually only in retrospect) it was right to do so.
![]()
114 views Permalink
(no ratings yet, click a square to vote)
Loading ...
01.09.12
Posted in 2¢ at 17:30 by RjZ
In junior high I decorated my text book covers with hand drawn letters and designs strongly influenced by Manchester designer Peter Saville. Don’t know him? He created iconic album covers for bands like Ultravox and the famous Joy Division Unknown Pleasures which I still see on t-shirts today. (Isn’t that an oldie? Get on with it kids, that (great) album was released in 1979!)
I remember playing with my dot-matrix ImageWriter II and being impressed with a new found array of fonts. Logical favorite then was “Ransom” designed by Susan Kare (she also designed the original mac icons!)
When the LaserWriter came out I wound up printing whole binders full of font samples. I took them oddly, naturally, and had an uncanny ability to identify font from samples. With so much proliferation of fonts, ugly and amazing, copies and variations, I no longer can just look at a font and tell its name. That doesn’t mean I don’t care about them.
So, have a look, I’m trying out Google Web Fonts. Did they make this page too long to download? Can you see the difference and do you like it? Let me know what you think. Bonus if you can name the fonts….
![]()
138 views Permalink
(1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading ...
12.29.11
Posted in 2¢ at 14:11 by RjZ
Go have a look at this article about Catholic charities pulling out of Illinois because they feel their religious freedom is being trampled. Before you go, do this one thing for me, would you? Replace “same-sex” with “black” (and, to make the point more clearly, replace “gay” with “negro”) and read on.
That this is really a civil-rights issue and not one of religious freedom becomes painfully obvious in this light and makes such arguments thin and perhaps a bit embarrassing. Should Catholic bishops (and everyone else) be entitled to religious freedom? Of course, but civil-rights, the rights of citizens in our democracy, must always trump religious freedom. It is through this simple test that we’re not entitled, for example, to permit ritual sacrifice of virgins, in the name of religious freedom. It is with this logic that we were finally able to shake off the shackles of religious tolerance for slavery, even when religion was incapable of doing so alone.
![]()
121 views Permalink
(no ratings yet, click a square to vote)
Loading ...
12.13.11
Posted in 2¢ at 17:00 by RjZ
During President Obama’s April 2009 visit to Turkey he denied that the United States is a Christian nation saying: “One of the great strengths of the United States is…we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values.”
Christian conservatives vehemently disagree.
Saudi Arabia is once again out to prove just how dangerous state sactioned religion can be, by beheading a person who’s religious beliefs are not aligned with those of the state. Of course, that’s an Islamic state, but the victim of this human rights offense, an alleged witch, would be at odds with a Christian nation as well.
The response to those claiming the United States of America is founded on Christian ideals shouldn’t be examples of agnostic or deist founding fathers and quotes from Thomas Jefferson’s letters, but rather a question. How we can ensure we won’t end up like Saudi Arabia, with religion police and executions for blasphemy, if we really did have a state-sponsored religion?
![]()
171 views Permalink
(no ratings yet, click a square to vote)
Loading ...
« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »