Thoughts

Where are the warning labels?

2010-06-06T20:59:00.000-07:00

Many places in the US have regulations and taxes on the purchase or consumption of various items, especially if someone deems them dangerous. For example, you may not be able to purchase Tobacco or alcohol without showing proof of minimum age. Due to pressure by the Federal Government, Tobacco products now carry labels on the product packaging and in the advertising warning of the dangers associated with their use. Advertisements for alcoholic products (apparently voluntarily) include warnings about "responsibly" using their products. You cannot purchase a firearm without showing not just proof of age, but also undergoing a background check and, in some places, passing a basic proficiency test. California even recently passed legislation to require a thumbprint for purchasing ammunition, something not even required for alcohol. For alcohol and Tobacco, on top of the warning labels, we also impose "sin" taxes. But what if there were a product that was far more harmful and addictive than Tobacco or alcohol? Now suppose it carried no warning labels, didn't have any "sin" taxes applied to it and it's distribution network was far more extensive than that used by alcohol and Tobacco?

That product is pornography. Its use is widespread, and its use is found among all age groups. It is highly addictive and some estimates put it at over $100B a year in worldwide revenue. Nowhere does it carry warning labels, and it is available in every household with a computer. The trail of carnage left by pornography range from failed marriages to self-esteem issues among both men and women. It evokes only lust, the same thing that led King David in the Old Testament to commit adultery with the wife of Uriah the Hittite, one of his most faithful soldiers, whom he later had murdered as he tried to avoid the consequences of his actions. Not something to be taken lightly.

The Grass is Always Greener

2010-01-10T18:01:00.001-08:00

As the old saying goes, the grass always seems greener on the other side. What if it's because the other side simply has more manure?

Tolerance includes religious views

2009-10-16T13:39:00.000-07:00

Richard John Neuhaus: "In a democracy that is free and robust, an opinion is no more disqualified for being 'religious' than for being atheistic, or psychoanalytic, or Marxist, or just plain dumb."

Professor Dinesh D’Souza: "The attempt to ground respect for equality on a purely secular basis ignores the vital contribution by Christianity to its spread. It is folly to believe that it could survive without the continuing aid of religious belief."

Link to a good article discussing these and other quotes:
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/religious-freedom

What Differentiates Man from the Animals

2009-09-27T15:50:00.000-07:00

Charles Jefferson, author of The Character of Jesus:

"The only thing which places a man above the beasts of the field is his possession of the spiritual gifts. … Man’s earthly existence is but a test as to whether he will concentrate his efforts, his mind, and his soul upon the things which contribute to the comfort and gratification of his physical instincts and passions, or whether he will make as his life's end and purpose the acquisition of spiritual qualities."

Another thought: "I don't doubt His wisdom; only my understanding of it."

Climate Change Falls Further Apart

2009-09-07T19:59:00.000-07:00

An LA Times reports that scientists have determined that sunspots have far greater effect on our climate than they realized. Other articles point out that termites emit significant amounts of carbon dioxide, with some articles reporting they emit as much as ten times what humans do.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-goldberg1-2009sep01,0,2797425.column

"What does it say that the modeling that guaranteed disastrous increases in global temperatures never predicted the halt in planetary warming since the late 1990s? (MIT's Richard Lindzen says that "there has been no warming since 1997 and no statistically significant warming since 1995.") What does it say that the modelers have only just now discovered how sunspots make the Earth warmer?"

http://ilovecarbondioxide.com/2009/04/termites-emit-ten-times-more-co2-than.html
Claims termites emit more CO2 than humans.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061104084951.htm
Claims natural sources, including termites, emit 40% of the CO2.

Quotes on Fear

2009-06-04T11:31:00.000-07:00

He has not learned the lesson of life who does not every day surmount a fear. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson

To fear is one thing. To let fear grab you by the tail and swing you around is another. ~Katherine Paterson

The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear - fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above everything else is safety. ~Henry Louis Mencken

There is a time to take counsel of your fears, and there is a time to never listen to any fear. ~George S. Patton

If you don't want to hear the answer, don't ask the question

2009-04-20T20:41:00.000-07:00

Among lawyers (or so I'm told), there is a saying to the effect that you should never ask a witness a question to which you don't already know the answer. When a gay activist asked Miss USA contestant Carrie Prejean what she thought about marriage, she gave an honest answer, one that contradicted the interrogator's views. In a moment that serves to reinforce the stereotype, the activist went off on a vulgar tirade.

Maybe if he doesn't want to hear the truth, he shouldn't ask the questions.

And maybe he should consider that some people still consider vulgarity to be the tool of those with limited vocabulary.

Constitutional Rights

2008-11-26T06:49:00.000-08:00

The US Constitution was written with the purpose of both restricting the government and protecting the rights of the people from the government. The types of rights it protects are defined as pre-existing, natural, and/or God-given. Likewise the constitutions of the various states in this country. The Constitution does not attempt to protect that which is unnatural. So when a Florida judge yesterday decided that a law restricting adoption to traditional married couples was unconstitutional, she was declaring that the constitution protects that which nature itself (basic biology) has denied.

Some try to pervert this by arguing that not all traditional couples are willing or able to have children of their own. This specious argument is merely an attempt to divert attention from the basic, natural, biological way of things by focusing on the exceptions. An exception does not a rule make. It still takes a male and a female to produce children, and the God-given (or natural) design is that children have both a father and mother. Those who argue that all children need is love are naive at best and deceptive at worst. Today's children are tomorrow's adults. Yes, children need food, clothing, shelter, education, direction, values, friendship, love, and so much more. But perhaps the most important thing children need is the perspective, lessons, and skills they gain from two beings that are different in nature: a father and mother.

Others will attempt to twist the notion of natural rights by pointing out that humans, by nature, don't belong on the moon. The Constitution protects the people from the government. It does not prevent the people from choosing the activities they will pursue, and it does not create rights—it protects natural, pre-existing, God-given rights. If the people decide to adopt a law reserving adoption for a married man and woman, then the government's place is to abide by it, conditioned on that law fitting in with the governing document, the Constitution that was created by the people (the "We the People" in the preamble). To argue that the Constitution prevents the people from enacting laws that preserve natural, pre-existing rights is ridiculous. To argue that the Constitution protects the biologically impossible was never the intent and is totally absurd.

References
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97478955
Excerpt:

"A Miami judge ruled Tuesday that there is no rational, scientific or moral reason that sexual orientation should be a barrier to adopting children, finalizing the adoption of two siblings by their gay foster father."

The lie of "human rights" tribunals

2008-11-01T11:07:00.000-07:00

What happens when the intolerant decide that freedom of speech should be one-sided? Those in the United States only need look north for the answer. If you don't think it can happen here, then you haven't been paying attention.

Try this on for size. A minister is fined for expressing his opinion in a letter to the editor.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODNhMTMyYjhhZGNkZGY5OGJhMjQ1YTM4MzEwNGRlODM=

"In June of 2002, a Canadian minister, the Rev. Stephen Boissoin wrote a letter to the editor of a newspaper in Alberta condemning the "homosexual agenda." It was in no manner close to what could be construed as hate speech. But for having an unpopular and allegedly discriminatory opinion, two years later an anti-Christian activist brought a complaint about Boissoin was brought before the Alberta "human rights" commssion. In 2007, the Alberta tribunal found him guilty of, well, something. And Just last week they finally handed down their sentence against Boissoin."

If that doesn't strike close to home for you, check out the persecution of one of Canada's largest magazines.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NmVmYzFlNGRhNzhhNGJkMzRlZDE0Nzc1NjFjNTg0NTY=

"At issue is a cover story National Review’s own Mark Steyn wrote for the Canadian newsweekly Maclean’s, titled “The Future Belongs to Islam.” An excerpt from Steyn’s bestselling book America Alone, the article highlighted the fact that demographic trends suggest that Muslims may well become a majority in much of Europe and that this obviously represents a threat to Europe as we know it. A few Muslim law students objected to the article and filed multiple complaints with Canada’s national and provincial “human rights” tribunals and presto! Steyn’s opinion and Maclean’s right to print it have now been effectively criminalized."

Equality for all?

2008-10-19T12:34:00.000-07:00

Image by Bob Warnick.

We've recently witnessed the brazen theft of "Yes on 8" signs in California. This petty behavior has prompted me to write. It strikes at the very heart of free speech in this country, where opponents are attempting to silence supporters of Proposition 8.

I've written previously about the issue of projection—where an accuser sees in others the faults they possess themselves—and how it applies to the battle for voters in California over Proposition 8. Many opponents of Proposition 8 shriek that the issue at hand has something to do with hatred. Perhaps in their view it does, since it appears that hatred consumes some significant portion of their lives. Specifically, opponents' anger and hatred have clearly manifested themselves in the theft and destruction of "Yes" signs (which I have personally witnessed), verbal assaults, and even physical attacks on voters, such as the October 13 story of Jose Nunez in Modesto. They accuse others of hatred and anger yet spare no effort to use it at every opportunity themselves, further making my case that opponents are projecting their anger unjustly onto others where it does not in reality exist. This should greatly disturb any rational citizen.

If the opposition is so willing and ready to deny others equality of speech, then there is good reason to suppose that other freedoms—religion, for example—are next.

Any cause which leads its supporters to commit theft and violence should be strongly and uniformly denounced by any decent human being. The pretense of "equality for all" being pitched by the opposition is clearly self-serving and one-sided, and by extension, it makes opponents of Proposition 8 bald-faced liars. I invite opponents of Proposition 8 to prove me wrong by issuing an unqualified statement denouncing the brazen theft, destruction, and violence seen thus far. If you sincerely believe Proposition 8 supporters are angry and hateful, then take the high road and show us your good example. For my part, if any supporter of Proposition 8 were engaged in similar activities, they should be treated as criminals. Supporters have no reason to trade away basic values such as honesty, tolerance, and respect for freedom of speech.

The unfortunately reality is that some of the most vocal opponents of Proposition 8 are guilty of the anger and hatred they see in others. They cannot tolerate the freedom of speech—perhaps the most basic form of equality for all—by those who support Proposition 8; their tolerance is one-sided and therefore false. There is no other way to explain their exceptionally poor behavior, and relying simply on how they "feel" is no excuse for their actions.

Tolerance

2008-10-19T07:49:00.000-07:00

In just a few weeks there are going to be 13 different Propositions for your consideration on the ballot along with various local and federal races. That's overwhelming for most people. There is one Proposition that I believe deserves your attention and "yes" vote more than anything else: Proposition 8. Proposition 8 restores the traditional definition of marriage in California. The bottom line question you're asking yourself is, "Why should I vote for this?"

We Californians pride ourselves in the diversity and tolerance in our state. We respect the freedom of others to make their own choices and we expect them to do the same for us. Tolerance and respect go both ways. We're willing to listen to others' viewpoints and consider them, but we don't want their ideas forced upon us. We expect to be able to make our voices duly heard through the political process. If you are one of the millions of Californians who identify with this description, then you will be stunned by recent events.

In May of this year, the California Supreme Court ruled1 that domestic partnerships in California—available since 2003— have "virtually all of the same substantive legal benefits and privileges, and imposes upon the couple virtually all of the same legal obligations and duties, that California law affords to and imposes upon a married couple." The high court's finding means that Voting Yes on Proposition 8 in no way affects the legal status of same-sex couples in California.We Californians' tolerate and respect our fellow citizens, and we expect them to do the same for us.

However, this last Friday, October 10, the San Francisco Chronicle reported2 that a first grade class—5 and 6 year old children—took a field trip, on school time, to witness a same-sex marriage performed by the San Francisco city mayor. When asked by the paper, the school staff noted that "they didn't see the big deal. Same-sex marriage is legal." As adults, we can tolerate others' choices even though we disagree, but the manipulation of our school children in an effort to force on us a contrary viewpoint is intolerant, un-Californian, and unacceptable. Children should not be exposed to adults' controversial decisions in this way: parents should be the ones to decide if and when to expose their children to these controversies. The school trip is just one of the many events that are happening and will continue to happen in California unless we pass Proposition 8.

I hope you find this as enlightening as I do, and more importantly, I hope you now see that tolerance and respect demand that we vote Yes on Proposition 8.

References
1. California Supreme Court, case S147999, dated 15 May 2008
2. "Class surprises lesbian teacher on wedding day," San Francisco Chronicle, October 11, 2008
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/11/MNFG13F1VG.DTL

21st Century Slavery

2008-10-15T20:45:00.000-07:00

I was struck with the parallel made by Patrick Lee in an article recently. In it, he adroitly points out that we don't seem to have learned how to apply to modern life the lessons from our own history regarding slavery:

"If a politician in the 19th century took a position on slavery analogous to that of Obama and Biden on abortion, his claim would go something like this: “I do not endorse slavery. I wouldn’t own slaves. I think people should be free not to own slaves, if they wish. But I am pro-choice. I have been a consistent champion of the right to own slaves for the last ten years. And I will make defense of that right a priority in my presidency. Of course, I hope fewer people will feel the need to resort to that choice, and so as president I will put into place economic policies that will reduce the need for slave labor in agriculture and in factories. But, to ensure that slavery remains an option for white men who should, after all, be free to decide how to manage their own affairs, I am in favor of providing subsidies for the purchase of slaves by whites whose farms and factories are at risk because of the high cost of wage labor.”

The central principle of our civilization is that all human beings possess an equal fundamental dignity, and no class of human beings can with justice enslave, use, experiment on, or deliberately kill other innocent human beings for their own purposes. Obama and Biden have rejected that basic principle. McCain and Palin embrace and uphold it."

Reference:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTI3Njc4OTUzMzQxZTQ2NWRkODEyOWZmNDliMTQyMTk=

Politics and Freedom of Religion

2008-09-06T10:36:00.000-07:00

One definition of religion is that it is a set of values. To be sure, religious views are that those values are eternal in nature and given by God. In a very real sense, in the secular world a set of values or a belief system are analogous and could be seen as a "secular religion." From that perspective, it makes no sense that big businesses should be allowed to contribute to groups of their choosing while imposing tight restrictions on religious groups. True, big businesses don't claim to be non-profit in nature. However, many are utilities that provide things like electricity, telephone services, and so forth, which are in many ways so regulated by the government as to be almost an extension of the government itself. They obtain exclusive, monopolistic contracts, lobby to obtain favorable tax structuring, and have historically succeeded in raising prices with little resistance from government oversight, possibly because it equates to more taxes for the government. The proverbial fox watching the hen house.

If big businesses can contribute heavily to candidates and causes of their own choosing, in spite of their government ties that make such contributions a conflict of interest, then there should be no problem with private non-profit groups speaking out in favor issues which they believe are relevant. Such freedom was recently at issue when the Catholic church spoke out against statements by Representative Pelosi. Some argued—wrongly, I think—that this was church crossing into politics. A Catholic priest I think summarized the situation very aptly, as quoted here:

"To those that argue that a priest shouldn’t enter the political fray, he responded that “it was the Speaker of the House who started this; she, and other pro-abortion Catholic politicians, regularly cross over into teaching theology and doctrine. And it’s our job to try clean up their mess.”"

If politicians can cross into issues that are at the core of a belief system, then they should not be surprised when religion crosses into the political. It's the politicians who apparently don't see the line.

One of the key reasons this country was formed in the 18th century was to escape the oppression of religion by government in England. To have our modern government dictating what a religious group can or cannot say is a return to the same oppression of more than 200 years ago.

References
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDc4MmU1Y2E3YjMyNzdiNGI1ZDFhOTNmMTI4OWQyNDM=

The Purpose and Meaning of Marriage

2008-08-12T07:28:00.000-07:00

There is much confusion in the world as to the definition of marriage. Among the voices are those asking, "Why shouldn't I be able to marry the person I love?" That question begs another question, namely whether love alone defines marriage.

The Purpose of Marriage
Marriage has historically involved fidelity, commitment, sacrifice, work, children, love, and yes, intimacy between a man and a woman. What has defined marriage, however, is the stable structure a man and woman create by entering into it—the family—one which is ideal for rearing children. Various studies have shown that children need both a father and a mother to reach their full potential. From a practical perspective, society has always had a vested interest in stable families because children literally are the future. When families fail, we see a range of negative consequences from poor self esteem and scholastic performance issues to gang involvement, none of which represent the best possibilities for the future.

There are, of course, families where a parent or children are absent, marriage itself is absent, or marriage was never a part. That does not make them the ideal or model of either marriage or family, however. Similarly, both marriages and families have their share of problems. Those problems are usually a result of the choices of the individuals involved, not the structure or form of traditional marriage and family.

Maggie Gallagher summarizes the need for traditional marriages and families this way:

"The marriage idea is that children need mothers and fathers, that societies need babies, and that adults have an obligation to shape their sexual behavior so as to give their children stable families in which to grow up."

What About Love?
Love can and does exist without marriage. Consider siblings, parents and their children, and friendships. Love does not require the institution of marriage. Likewise, human intimacy can and does exist outside of and independent of marriage (which arguably causes its own set of problems). What sets marital love apart is the commitment and sacrifice for a common purpose, namely the creation of a family both capable and suited to rearing children. Without sacrifice and service, love is hollow and meaningless. It is true love that motivates the sacrifice of self interest, and the willingness to conform to and adhere to the conditions expected of traditional marriage. That is what makes traditional marriage so well suited to family life.

Why do we so strongly support the preservation of traditional marriage? For the preservation of the family. Again Maggie Gallagher says it best: "Same-sex marriage would enshrine in law a public judgment that the desire of adults for families of choice outweighs the need of children for mothers and fathers." The needs of children outweigh the needs of self-interested individual adults, and children need both a father and a mother.

Every human on the planet has needs and desires. That does not mean we should instantly seek to gratify every one of them. Andrew Tallman: "But strong desires do not justify behavior. Otherwise the study of ethics would be nothing more than the articulation of our impulses." The problem with the seemingly-plausible argument that love is enough to justify the redefinition of marriage (and, by extension, family) is that it relies purely on emotion to make life-changing decisions. Love is wonderful and important, but by itself it does not define marriage and is not a reason to erase traditional marriage.

References
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=2939&R=13BAC193F9

http://townhall.com/columnists/AndrewTallman/2008/07/31/five_logical_errors_of_the_born_gay_ideology?page=1

Playing Dirty

2008-08-06T21:09:00.000-07:00

One of the issues with the battle over Proposition 8—its title—is summarized well by the Modesto Bee. There's another report at Mercury news.

http://www.modbee.com/opinion/state/dan_walters/story/377159.html
Excerpt:

"Brown's action is reminiscent of the misleading and biased title and summary he issued for a February ballot measure to modify legislative term limits that obscured its true impact. And it's likely that Brown altered Proposition 8's title language either at the behest of gay rights groups opposed to Proposition 8 or to curry favor with them, with the likely motivation that Brown wants to run for governor in 2010 and helping defeat Proposition 8 would help him win the Democratic nomination."

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_10034736
Excerpt:

"One veteran political observer charged that Brown's possible run for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination was a factor in the ballot language.
"It's clear to me that what Jerry Brown is trying to do is deliver for a political group that is crucial to his election for governor," said Tony Quinn, a political analyst with historic ties to Republicans who called Brown's phrasing "unethical." "The title ought to be 'Marriage,' or 'Rules Regarding Marriage,' - something that is clearly neutral in its language," Quinn said. "If you had a very conservative attorney general and he had a title to Proposition 4" - a constitutional amendment that would require a waiting period before the termination of a minor's pregnancy - "that said, 'Saves the Lives of the Unborn,' or something like that, you'd have howling from the liberal side.""

Why failure is not an option

2008-08-05T08:01:00.000-07:00

I find it interesting and ironic that opponents of California's Proposition 8 are quick to accuse supporters of traditional marriage of being motivated by "fear and hate" (Fred Karger, Californians Against Hate, quoted various places). And opponents can't figure out why they think that if Prop 8 fails that churches will be in danger? If opponents can accuse "fear and hate" for a proposition that proclaims a basic belief and uses no negative language of any sort, then churches that support traditional marriage—or refuse to perform non-traditional marriages—can also be accused of "fear and hate." Suddenly traditional beliefs are a "hate crime." Don't believe it can get to that point? Check out the story below about the private business—a photographer—that was fined almost $7,000 by the state of New Mexico for declining to take a job photographing a same-sex couple, for just one example. Instead of finding a different photographer, the same-sex couple got the government to violate the photographer's constitutionally-protected rights. Anyone who thinks that "live and let live" is somehow a workable solution needs to reconsider. It seems to me that if the term "hate" is going to be thrown around that we ought to consider this case (among others), where the openly-vindictive same-sex couple has used the courts to forced its will on others, arguably violating the photographer's First Amendment protections. Fortunately, the Alliance Defense Fund is appealing the case in behalf of the photographer.

Another example of refusing to "live and let live" is a lawsuit against the Methodist Church by a same-sex couple demanding access to private religious property. Yet another is the case of a priest arrested for quoting the Bible in Sweden. A fourth is the story of a same-sex couple demanding in court intrauterine insemination—something not typically covered by insurance and certain not life-saving in nature—which the court and press are calling "medical treatment." Again, rather than find someone who would comply, they sued, so that they could obtain that which is biologically impossible on their own.

The other problem with opponents of Proposition 8 is one of projection. The faults we see in others are usually our own. Those who immediately jump to emotionally-charged accusations are projecting their own emotions on others. It's far better to exercise self control, restraint, and reason. Oh wait. Those are traditional values.

An interesting—but ultimately specious—argument is that Proposition 8 "takes away" rights. The signature-gathering process started well before the court's decision, Proposition 22 was 8 years ago, and the California Supreme Court agreed that the original intent of the state's constitution was traditional marriage. It was only this most recent ruling that created this new right, and had the court followed the Massachusetts' court lead and stayed its ruling to give the legislative process time, this argument would be a non-starter. There would be no new right to be "taken away."

In one of the links below one of the posters correctly identifies that the People have a government, not vice versa. The court ignored that in its ruling that overturned both the original intent of the state's Constitution and Proposition 22. The government exists to serve the People, and the People are now engaged in a tug-of-war with the judiciary saying, "Yes, we really meant it when we backed traditional marriage." The institution of marriage predates our government. It can be recognized by the government, but is not owned nor created by the government.

If opponents of Proposition 8 (and Prop 22) are so sure that the public wants same-sex marriage, then they should just put it to a vote of the people, instead of having the legislature or the courts impose it. The savvy reader will, of course, point out that Proposition 22 essentially did this back in 2000, and 61% of the voters elected to preserve traditional marriage.

As an introduction to the whole topic of preserving marriage, especially for members of the LDS Church, I would point to the words of Elder Neal A Maxwell from 1979. He makes the important point that we all must be involved and knowledgeable, ready to speak in defense of principles:

"It is important for you to be philosophical defenders as well as practicers of chastity. Articulate advocacy is surely needed now with regard to some of the damaging balderdash we see and hear in the world pertaining to immoral life-styles."

"Austin Farrer warned, "Though argument does not create conviction, the lack of destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned." (Light on C. S. Lewis, Harcourt and Brace: New York, 1965, p. 26.) Peter said, “Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear” (1 Pet. 3:15)."

Regarding the imposition of same-sex marriage by the court, these words seem fitting (also by Neal A Maxwell), both as words of warning and as a description of the same-sex marriage experiment:

"A wise French philosopher, Bainville, warned, "One must want the consequences of what he wants." The lines of another Frenchman, La Rochefoucauld, could have been spoken of this experimentation in non-family life when he said, "There goes another beautiful theory about to be murdered by a brutal gang of facts.""

The good news is that it looks like we only need a simple majority to pass the initiative amendment, per this article.

LINKS OF INTEREST

http://www.cacatholic.org/bishops-statements/a-statement-of-the-catholic-bishops-of-california-in-support-of-proposition-8.html
Catholic Church's official statement about Proposition 8

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/california-and-same-sex-marriage
LDS Church's official statement about Proposition 8

http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2004-08-05
Excerpts:

"The Swedish church newspaper Kyrkans Tidning reported that the prosecutor in this case, Kjell Yngvesson, justified the arrest and prosecution of Pastor Green on these grounds: "One may have whatever religion one wishes, but this is an attack on all fronts against homosexuals. Collecting Bible citations on this topic as he does makes this hate speech.""
"The issue of homosexuality has also become a test case for American civil liberties. Where homosexual behavior was once characterized as sodomy and thus criminalized, some now openly call for the criminalizing of all "hate speech" addressed to homosexuals. Earlier this year, the U.S. Senate passed a hate crimes provision attached to a defense appropriation bill. Sponsored by senators Ted Kennedy [D-MA] and Gordon Smith [R-OR], the law would have levied fines against anyone found to have committed a crime that is "motivated by prejudice based on the race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or disability of the victim." The provision passed the Senate, but died in the conference process with the House of Representatives. Nevertheless, the fact that the bill passed in the Senate sends the nation an urgent warning, and the logical jump from "hate crimes" legislation to codes against "hate speech" is small indeed."

http://blog.heritage.org/2008/05/17/constitutional-amendments-only-protection-from-activist-courts/
Excerpt:

The decision is a masterpiece of judicial activism. It is long on public policy preferences, and extremely short on law. Questions like what constitutes marriage are beyond the competence and expertise of judges. Decisions like these weaken the judicial system by causing the electorate to question the legitimacy of judicial decision-making.

http://www.frc.org/marriage/redefining-marriage-will-affect-all-americans
The California Supreme Court's Edict Redefining Marriage Will Affect All Americans, and what may happen in the near future.

http://nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200602030805.asp
Excerpt:

"It’s like this. The way to abolish marriage, without seeming to abolish it, is to redefine the institution out of existence. If everything can be marriage, pretty soon nothing will be marriage."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/015/140dikiv.asp?pg=1
Excerpt:

"The 4-3 decision ripped away the presumed middle ground on the issue and (assuming the court grants no stay of implementation before mid-June) all but issues an invitation to out-of-state same-sex couples to migrate to California to be married between now and Election Day, November 4. This in turn makes certain that the federal courts will have the option of reinvolving themselves within a matter of months, regardless of the outcome of California's referendum on a constitutional amendment restoring traditional marriage."

http://www.familyleader.info/archive/documents/2008/07/15/10%20Reason%20In-Depth.pdf
10 Reasons Why Marriage Should be Protected with a Constitutional Amendment

http://www.heritage.org/Research/family/wm1932.cfm
Excerpt:

"The court's decision does not expand marriage; it alters its core meaning. To redefine marriage so that it is not intrinsically related to the relationship between fathers, mothers, and children formally severs the institution from its nature and purpose, remaking the institution into a mere contract between any two individuals."

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWYwM2I4NGIzOTk5NTUzYzZkYzFhZjFkYzZiMWQ2NzM=

Excerpt:

"Reasonable people of good will have competing views on whether and how state laws should accommodate same-sex relationships. Our own views on this matter are traditionalist. But in a representative democracy, everyone ought to agree that any changes should result from legislation, not from activist judges who twist and distort constitutional text to their own ends."

http://townhall.com/columnists/AndrewTallman/2008/07/31/five_logical_errors_of_the_born_gay_ideology?page=1
Five Logical Errors of the 'Born Gay' Ideology
Excerpt:

"But strong desires do not justify behavior. Otherwise the study of ethics would be nothing more than the articulation of our impulses."

http://patterico.com/2008/05/15/california-supreme-court-holds-that-gays-have-a-state-constitutional-right-to-marry/
Excerpts:

"It is never a good idea for a branch of government to claim ownership of a foundational social institution of civil society. The majority opinion equated Domestic Partnership with Marriage even though the former is an entirely state-concocted relationship status while the latter is an element of civil society that pre-exists government authority — indeed it pre-exists the state's constitution."

"The constitution provides the framework by which society is self-governed. The People have a government, not the other way around.... Their [the court's] failure reveals that they chose to reject the state constitution AND the will of the People as expressed, constitutionally, in a direct vote on a statutory measure."

"Marriage is a social institution recognized, not owned, by the government. Couples enter the social institution, they do not reinvent it one private choice at-a-time. This institution has public meaning such that couples know what they are getting into or, at least, our marriage culture teaches what threshold these newlyweds have crossed when they walk through the doorway into marriage."

http://www.setexasrecord.com/arguments/212614-legally-speaking-through-a-lens-darkly
Photographer fined almost $7,000 by State of New Mexico for refusing to photograph gay event.

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/story.aspx?cid=4593
Alliance Defense Fund appeals fine for photographer
Excerpt:

"“The government cannot make people choose between their faith and their livelihood,” said Lorence. “Could the government force a vegetarian videographer to create a commercial for the new butcher shop in town? American business owners do not surrender their constitutional rights at the marketplace gate.”"

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/11546874/
Lesbian Couple Wants Access to Religious Property for Civil Union

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-supreme19-2008aug19,0,2388017.story
Excerpt:

"In its second major decision advancing gay rights this year, the state high court ruled that religious physicians must obey a state law that bars businesses from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation."

http://www.nomcalifornia.org/site/c.htJSJaMQIuE/b.4312951/
National Organization for Marriage talking points about Proposition 8.

http://dennisprager.townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2008/05/20/california_decision_will_radically_change_society

"Unless California voters amend the California Constitution or Congress amends the U.S. Constitution, four justices of the California Supreme Court will have changed American society more than any four individuals since Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Madison."

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGNmODNiMjI0MTQ1MTQwNGM4N2YyNmVhY2UyZTE0OWY=
Excerpt:

"In the meantime, what have we learned about what gay marriage will mean for gays, for marriage, and for the wider society? In just the last few months, a newly confident same-sex-marriage movement is becoming more open and revealing about the answers.

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF
Ruling by the California Supreme Court overturning Proposition 22 and imposing same-sex marriage.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/26/MNL011V2DR.DTL
Some history behind amending the California Constitution

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/938xpsxy.asp
Excerpts:

"Once the principles of monogamous companionate marriage are breached, even for supposedly stable and committed sexual groups, the slide toward full-fledged promiscuity is difficult to halt."

"There is a rational basis for blocking both gay marriage and polygamy, and it does not depend upon a vague or religiously based disapproval of homosexuality or polygamy. Children need the stable family environment provided by marriage. In our individualist Western society, marriage must be companionate--and therefore monogamous. Monogamy will be undermined by gay marriage itself, and by gay marriage's ushering in of polygamy and polyamory."

"Marriage is a critical social institution. Stable families depend on it. Society depends on stable families. Up to now, with all the changes in marriage, the one thing we've been sure of is that marriage means monogamy. Gay marriage will break that connection. It will do this by itself, and by leading to polygamy and polyamory. What lies beyond gay marriage is no marriage at all."

Why we need to preserve marriage

2008-07-07T08:03:00.000-07:00

This year in California, the November ballot will put to the voters once again the question of how marriage should be defined. In May of this year, the California Supreme Court threw out the year-2000, voter-approved initiative, Proposition 22, that defined marriage as between a man and a woman (61% voted in favor). Although this has brought to the forefront the definition of marriage, much of the attention has been focused on the "right" of homosexuals to marriage. The media, always looking for a controversy that can gain them an audience, labels anyone in favor of traditional marriage as "religious" or "anti-gay", and attempts to portray the redefinition of marriage as being on par with the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. Given the high tensions, the raw emotion, and the dearth of voices supporting traditional marriage, I think it's worth the time to cut through the frenzy, to try to look at some of the issues from a rational point of view. We need to take a hard look at the questions in this dispute over what marriage is.

How did we get here?

In 2000, the people voted overwhelmingly in favor of Proposition 22, defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
In 2002, the California state legislature passed AB25, which gave homosexuals the right to adopt.
In 2003, the state legislature passed AB205 creating domestic partnerships, in spite of Proposition 22. The court bypassed Proposition 22 by finding that it only protected the term "marriage" but not the substance or form of marriage.
In 2004, San Francisco's mayor grants same-sex marriage licenses, openly violating the existing laws.
In 2005, the legislature passes AB 849, a bill legalizing same-sex marriage. It is vetoed by the governor.
In 2006, AB43 is passed by the legislature again attempting to legalize same-sex marriage. It is again vetoed by the governor.
In 2008, the California Supreme Court strikes down Proposition 22.

Only the first event, Proposition 22, was the express will of the people. The rest have been the efforts of the state's legislature or state courts. Considering that the legislature passes hundreds of bills every year—and considers many thousands more—I suspect that most people do not recall or are simply unaware of these events.

Media Distortion

One of the challenges for those in favor of preserving marriage as between a woman and a man is the media's heavy distortion of the entire discussion by its constant references to supporters of traditional marriage as "anti-gay". The text of Proposition 22 and the proposed Constitutional Amendment, Proposition 8, have not a single negative thing to say about anyone or anything. Rather, they affirm, using positive language, what marriage has always been prior to being erased by the court. Specifically, proposition 8 states that, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Any reading of "anti" anything is the result of interpretation or "spin". Make no mistake: the redefinition of marriage in California has already occurred with the decision by the California Supreme court to strike down Proposition 22. The proposed amendment this November is an attempt to restore that which was taken by the court. Those spinning against this proposition label it as "anti-gay", not because it is, but simply because they hope this language will browbeat voters giving them what they want.

Nothing to gain through redefinition

Speaking of what they want, what exactly do same-sex couples gain if we allow the redefinition of marriage to stand? According to the California Supreme Court, ironically in the same ruling where they overturned Proposition 22, they would gain nothing: "[T]he current California statutes grant same-sex couples who choose to become domestic partners virtually all of the legal rights and responsibilities accorded married couples under California law" (California Supreme Court, case S147999, dated 15 May 2008). In the same document, they also write, "California... has enacted comprehensive domestic partnership legislation under which a same-sex couple may enter into a legal relationship that affords the couple virtually all of the same substantive legal benefits and privileges, and imposes upon the couple virtually all of the same legal obligations and duties, that California law affords to and imposes upon a married couple" (ibid). Voters should note the irony here: we were told that, in the spirit of fairness, that domestic partnerships needed to be created and recognized by the state. Now that they exist, they're used to justify redefining marriage. After all, reasoned the court, Proposition 22 only protected the name marriage, not the substance or form, and since they're now the same in all but name only, there's nothing preventing us from giving the name as well.

Overstepping Judicial Power

With the court having already stated there is no additional legal benefit or privilege to be gained, there remains only the intangible, emotional aspects to consider for those in favor of redefinition. The lack of a strong legal argument meant that the court had to perform legal legerdemain in an effort to justify itself. When the court decided to overturn Proposition 22, it was not due to serious legal inequities, but for "dignity and respect", a term they used repeatedly. When the courts legislate (but do not define) from the bench the "dignity and respect" of one group at the expense of another, they have strayed outside their constitutionally-defined role. Justice Baxter summarized this in his dissent, noting that the "[the court's] pronouncement seriously oversteps the judicial power". Overstepping its constitutional powers is grave enough, but the court also compounded a bad decision with yet another. With Proposition 22 in place, the state legislature could not legally overturn or repeal the will of the voters to redefine marriage, although it did everything just short of that, including the creation of domestic partnerships. The court relied on the existence of domestic partnerships as basis for inventing a new right, effectively allowing the legislature to do something that would otherwise be illegal: It gave "the Legislature indirectly power that body does not directly possess to amend the Constitution and repeal an initiative statute" (dissent by Justice Baxter). Amending the Constitution is a power reserved solely to the People, not the legislature nor the judiciary. Worse still, the court placed its decision outside the legislative process by declaring this invented right to be found in the Constitution, even though they relied on laws created by the legislature for support, which one Justice described as the court improperly creating "constitutionalized" legislation (ibid). A constitutional amendment or right, by definition, does not come from the legislature nor the judiciary.

Unanswered Questions

The court also left many unanswered questions that open the door for further legislation by the judiciary. Consider that since the anti-traditional marriage crowd does not find dignity and respect in domestic partnerships (per the court), it's unreasonable to assume that they'll be satisfied for long with having just the name changed to marriage. What will happen in 6 months, a year, or longer, when the anti-traditional marriage group feels they still don't have the dignity and respect the court has tried to confer on them, and how will this lack be measured? Will we next dissolve traditional marriage altogether so the anti-traditionalists can feel dignity and respect? What about the dignity and respect of other groups like creationists, gun owners, or oil companies? Will the court be providing legislation to ensure their dignity and respect as well? The reality is, of course, that dignity and respect are earned, not legislated nor bestowed by decree, a fact apparently lost on the court.

Uneven Application of Law

In its decision to overturn Proposition 22, the court stated that the proposition did not meet the "strict scrutiny" standard of being both compelling and necessary for the State. However, when they went one step further and rewrote marriage, the court changed tactics and failed to apply that same standard. Specifically, the court did not demonstrate that redefining marriage was both compelling and necessary, something they could not do since they had already found that no legal inequality exists. In spite of this obvious inconsistency, the court overturned Proposition 22 and created a new "right" to marriage. Even if you agree with the court's decision to overturn Proposition 22, you should be outraged at how they got there. As age-old wisdom reminds us, the ends do not justify the means. The court's contradictory reasoning (the "means") is now legal precedent for future cases, and supporters of the court's decision can be sure that future rulings will result in decisions they do not like using this same approach.

California Constitution Original Intent: A Man and a Woman

The ingenious design of our government gives to the people various mechanisms for dealing with out-of-control legislators, which is why they, along with the People, are the groups designated to create laws. Judicial activism that "finds" (a euphemism for invents) new rights upsets this carefully designed balance of power. This "new right" was not the original intent of the California Constitution, as witnessed by dissenting Justice Baxter in this case: "The California Constitution says nothing about the rights of same-sex couples to marry. On the contrary, as the majority concedes, our original Constitution, effective from the moment of statehood, evidenced an assumption that marriage was between partners of the opposite sex" (italics added).

Ignoring its own rulings

The court also had to abandon its own precedent in striking down Proposition 22. In a 1998 ruling, the California Supreme court stated that its role "as the final arbiter of constitutional issues", especially regarding statues, is to "always presum[e] the constitutional validity of legislative acts and resolving doubts in favor of the statute" (Dawn D. v. Superior Court (1998), as quoted by Justice Corrigan). Adherence to this standard means that the court should have deferred to the voters and the legislative process, and upheld Proposition 22.

Among the many ironies of the ruling is that the court refused to treat as binding the historical meaning of marriage yet relied on history to invent the new right of same-sex marriage. They cite previous cases, statutory laws, social norms, and previous treatment of gays—all historical events—to justify the invention of a new right throughout the ruling.

Not like the Civil Rights movement

What about the comparison to the Civil Rights movement? What makes the civil rights movement so different from current events is that the courts correctly let the people (through the legislative process) create the laws. Justice Corrigan sums it up nicely:

"The [court] majority refers to the race cases, from which our equal protection jurisprudence has evolved. The analogy does not hold. The civil rights cases banning racial discrimination were based on duly enacted amendments to the United States Constitution, proposed by Congress and ratified by the people through the states. To our nation’s great shame, many individuals and governmental entities obdurately refused to follow these constitutional imperatives for nearly a century. By overturning Jim Crow and other segregation laws, the courts properly and courageously held the people accountable to their own constitutional mandates. Here the situation is quite different. In less than a decade, through the democratic process, same-sex couples have been given the equal legal rights to which they are entitled."

When these "Jim Crow" laws were overturned in 1954 by the Supreme Court in one of the key cases of the Civil Rights movement, Brown versus Board of Education of Topeka, the court unanimously found that the separate educational facilities in place were in fact not equal, something much more concrete and measurable than vague terms like "dignity and respect". It was the legislative process that created the laws regarding civil rights, not the courts. The court simply upheld them.

In the case to protect marriage, though, we have something completely different than the civil rights movement. The California Supreme Court has already declared that there is equality in domestic partnerships; inequality in law does not exist here. They seek to change, in a fundamental fashion, the institution of marriage, and by extension, the traditional family. With no legal benefit or privilege is being withheld (per the court), and the institution itself scrapped in favor of a new definition imposed by the court, this issue is not like the Civil Rights movement. Again Justice Corrigan:

"The distinction between substance and nomenclature makes this case different from other civil rights cases. The definition of the rights to education, to vote, to pursue an office or occupation, and the other celebrated civil rights vindicated by the courts, were not altered by extending them to all races and both genders. The institution of marriage was not fundamentally changed by removing the racial restrictions that formerly encumbered it. Plaintiffs, however, seek to change the definition of the marital relationship, as it has consistently been understood, into something quite new. They could certainly accomplish such a redefinition through the initiative process. As a voter, I might agree. But that change is for the people to adopt, not for judges to dictate."

Losing Marriage, Dignity and Respect

Those in favor of traditional marriage stand to lose an institution that has been defined as being between a man and a woman for untold thousands of years, and that has served as the core of families, which are the foundation of societies. When you redefine marriage, by definition, you redefine family. We are being asked to toss aside not just the time-proven institution of marriage, but also family, to be replaced with chaos and confusion, all so those who refuse to abide by its traditional definition can feel "dignity and respect." If Marriage is dignified and respectable, it is because it has earned these accolades. In the effort to heap upon themselves the perceived dignity and respect associated with it, those in favor of erasing traditional marriage destroy its very nature. Rewrite it, and the accolades no longer apply because the original nature of Marriage has been extirpated. The dignity and respect disappears with the original definition.

Those in favor of marriage as between a man and a woman also stand to lose additional freedoms in the future. By its ruling, the court has taken away the right of the People to choose for themselves what they think and how they will live, and replaced it with a dictate of its own. If marriage can be redefined by the court, so can other deeply-rooted definitions such as gender, religion, and more. When one side stands to gain nothing tangible while the other loses a core, defining foundational piece, it is nothing less than an effort to take away and destroy.

Uncomfortable Questions

There are a number of uncomfortable questions that we will have to face if we do not pass Proposition 8: What will marriage mean once redefined? And when will it be next redefined? What other areas of society will we redefine, and who will make these decisions? These, and others, are all troubling questions not being discussed in public forum, with immense consequences. Remember that Proposition 22 was the voice of the people, and a small group of judges decided to overturn it, not due to serious legal inequities, but for "dignity and respect." When the courts can legislate "dignity and respect" for a group with whom you happen to agree, they can also do so for those with whom you disagree. The California Supreme Court has had to engage in the worst kind of judicial activism to fulfill a political agenda. We should all be very concerned about how we got here and the inevitable consequences. More importantly, we must use the legal mechanisms available to us to contain the activist court. We must pass Proposition 8 this November to take the ability to define marriage back from the court and place in into the hands of the People.

Climate Change Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD)

2008-06-20T08:03:00.000-07:00

A letter in response to an article in Money magazine.

I read tonight your article on the last page of the July 2008 Money magazine. In the article, you say that carbon dioxide emissions "speed up climate change" and that "pumping carbon into the air gets expensive". From this (and the rest of the article), I infer that you are of the opinion that carbon dioxide is a problem.

I believe in being responsible. Being responsible, though, means making good decisions based on accurate information, as opposed to taking what the mainstream media hands us at face value. When I started independently looking into CO2 as a greenhouse gas some time back, I was surprised by what I found. The mainstream media, for example, does not tell you that there is one atmospheric gas that has a far greater impact than CO2 on the heat retained by our atmosphere: water vapor (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Role_of_water_vapor). In retrospect, this makes sense, and common sense readily confirms it to the layman: experience a 90-degree day with 100% humidity versus a desert with 20% humidity at the same temperature and you'll have an idea of the effect of water vapor. To put it differently, take away the water vapor and our planet would literally freeze. In comparison, CO2 is a "trace" gas in our atmosphere, even with animals, humans, automobiles, and many other sources emitting CO2. What about Venus, you say? Venus' atmosphere is 96.5% CO2 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus) versus the Earth's 0.03-0.06%, and due to its total makeup, Venus has an atmosphere that is much "thicker" than that of Earth. It's also significantly closer to the Sun than the Earth (0.72 AU).

Part of the reason some people ignore water vapor is that they consider it "driven" by other factors (as opposed to directly impacted by people). If you increase CO2, so the reasoning goes, you also increase the temperature, no matter how slightly, and as a result the air can hold more total water vapor (relative humidity). With more water vapor in the atmosphere, you retain more heat, which they figure in turn might lead to even more water vapor being absorbed, and so on. This leads to the predictions of a cataclysmic end where the Earth looks like Venus. Sounds reasonable enough on the surface, except that there are serious problems with some the assumptions (such as relative humidity; see below) incorporated into the climate models used by various groups. This is why most of the models cannot match even historical data without being massaged. That we are unable to accurately model the atmosphere also speaks volumes to the complexity of the Earth and its atmosphere. Yes, you can use that as an argument to be responsible, but not as one to act rashly as some have suggested.

A serious problem with some of the climate models was identified back in 2004 by NASA (see http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0315humidity.html). In that report they noted that the assumption that the relative humidity stays constant with an increase in temperature is wrong and results in exaggerated climate predictions. That is, as the temperature goes up, the amount of water goes up more slowly. Why is relative humidity important? Because water vapor is by far the most influential factor in heat retention in our atmosphere.

Another serious problem with some of the predictions are that we have seen temperature swings in the very recent past that defy modeled predictions and effects: the 1998 El Niño event is one of these. In that event, the global temperature went up an average of 2.5 degrees and record high temperatures were recorded around the globe. Given the line of reasoning regarding relative humidity, we might have expected the average temperatures to continue to rise after 1998, or to stay at that level, since an increase in temperature means more total water is in the atmosphere. What actually happened is that the following year temperatures were actually 2 degrees below average, or 4.5 degrees cooler. In other words, a 2.5 degree increase did not produce a runaway effect, and 2.5 degrees is even more than some of the predictions currently in circulation.

I have concluded that there is a lot of fear, uncertainty, and doubt needlessly being peddled by those with something to gain over the issue of climate change, be it research money or public opinion. There is also a lot more disagreement and uncertainty about climate change than what some would have us believe (see: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb ). I would encourage you to be more moderate in your support for legislation and actions that bring considerable risk, economic and otherwise. There are extreme groups with a stake in climate change, and if we buy everything being sold, we can only wonder what will be next: regulation of water vapor, anyone?

Contradictions and Confusion

2008-05-29T08:05:00.000-07:00

This evening I heard a BBC report that Brazil's supreme court has declared it legal to perform research on stem cells taken from human embryos. The report is careful to identify opponents of the research as religious, and the proponents as scientists. They quoted one opponent as stating that allowing this type of research was no different than selling children to take their organs for adults.

We live in a world of confusion.

Does it not seem ironic that leaving your dog on a chain outside carries a fine in some places, yet abortion and embryonic stem cell research is legal?

Food prices are on the rise, some are claiming overpopulation, yet in the US less than 6% of the population is involved in food production.

People in favor of protecting life (and consequently opposed to stem cell research) are "religious" yet animal rights and "green" groups are not? Is the level of commitment to the animal or green causes anything less than religious in nature?

People freeze embryos? How can any imagined nightmare compare to that?

We shake our enlightened heads at the primitive Aztecs sacrificing humans, yet we nod to abortion, freezing embryos, and embryonic stem cell research. What would the Aztecs have thought?

References: http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN29353044

The Danger of the Magic Bullet

2004-11-08T10:01:00.000-08:00

I'm trying to learn whatever lessons I can from various bad situations I've seen over the years. I think one of the biggest problems is management that is looking for a "magic bullet" to solve all their problems. One more reorg, they figure, will make it all better and suddenly unleash the productivity locked in our organization. At one place, someone declared that the "next generation hosting architecture" will be Oracle RAC on Red Hat on Intel blades, never mind the mountains of information indicating the foolishness of its wholesale adoption (RAC works great for heavy read situations and for high availability, but does nothing to solve write-intensive scenarios). If we can just get rid of all the "expensive Sun" hardware, they figure, all their problems will go away. And so on. I see this as a failure by management to face their problems and put in the hard work necessary to resolve the real, immediate issues. I've had a bit of an epiphany in this regard: Technical solutions cannot substitute for missing or broken processes. In the process, they violate the wisdom of ages by throwing out the baby with the bathwater (so to speak).

I can respect the effort to do something to move the company forward (grow or die, as the business adage says), but things are out of hand when you have technically incompetent people making decisions, refusing to work with the technical folks, and even threatening them when they don't agree with their nonsense. They're using the goal of saving money to push their pet technologies, even when they don't fit. In the manufacturing world, they call this type of arrangement a forced fit.

The Value of Standards

2004-10-13T10:01:00.000-07:00

As more and more global players come online and start offering IT products (hardware, software, etc), one obvious effect is more competition. But it also means an opportunity for more specialization.

Right now, however, it seems to me that our industry itself is helping to enflame this issue. How many IT departments do you know that refuse to consider anything but the largest one or two players in a particular segment (be it a database, web server, or whatever)? In effect, we restrict our options because of a mindset. You can reasonably argue that you get better support and a more polished product from the #1 or #2 vendors, but you end up changing your approach based on their tools, as opposed to finding a tool that fits your specific needs. You also typically pay a premium for those products.

There is value in "standards", but how far do you go? Is it really necessary for your company to use exclusively a specific version of a single vendor's web server (as a crude example), when there are perhaps a dozen that all comply with larger, RFC-based standards? Don't laugh--I've seen it at larger companies. In that sense, your company's selection of a particular product is not a true "standard", but only a restriction of choice among products that are all standards compliant. You don't want anarchy and chaos in a datacenter, of course, so I'm not suggesting that it should be a free-for-all either. But I do think we need to strike a balance between the extremes that we don't see today.

What I'm trying to get at is that a larger pool of products and technology can be good for everyone. Companies get exactly what they need, and vendors are able to stay in business. One example might be Apple Computer. They've long been considered to have somewhere under 10% of the computer market, yet they're doing just fine. Some would say they represent a "vertical market" segment. Regardless, you'll never see them in the datacenters of many of these corporations solely because they're not considered the #1 or #2 player in the computing market. If you're a Fortune 500 company, you can refuse to do business with anyone but other Fortune 500 companies, and that's your prerogative. But here's where I see opportunity for smaller, more agile competitors to get an edge. I see the recent X Prize winner as an example of that. Boeing and friends don't seem at all interested in a $10M prize--it's too small for them to notice.

I think the key to the future is compliance with open standards (not to be confused with open source) and a change in mindset. If we can do that, I believe market forces will make it possible for players both domestic (meaning US) and foreign to all share in that market.

As a political observation, the Republican party tends to be friendlier to business (both small and large) than the Democratic party. So it seems to me that the results of this year's elections can have a significant impact on the process above.

A Solid Gold Trashcan

2004-10-06T10:02:00.000-07:00

One company's story. A nostalgic look back at the heyday of the dot com bubble. Or maybe things we can learn from it. One of my favorite parts:

"One time, a group of us were standing around in the atrium of ArsDigita HQ, and Philip was holding court. (As you may know, Philip is a talented public speaker with an exceptional ability to entertain an audience.) This time, Philip was describing how cool it would be to have a koi pond suspended from the ceiling of the atrium, so you could see the fish swimming from beneath and from all sides. Brian Stein replied, "You know what would be even better? A solid-gold trash can, burning cash 24/7." I don't think we would have laughed so long and hard if Brian had not struck a chord."

http://michael.yoon.org/arsdigita
http://www.waxy.org/random/arsdigita/
http://eveander.com/arsdigita-history