California's Proposition 8

Now, isn't this surprising--leftists acting like the perpetual children they are when they don't get their way.

Just in case you've not heard, after California decided (for a SECOND time by democratic vote) that marriage should be defined as being between a man and a woman, there were protests and marches. This of course included the usual arrests and vandalism (the protesters were seen banging on doors, walls and climbing on cars--all of which can be construed as vandalism because they damage property).

Of course what gets me, is that the protesters were carrying signs which read:

We All Deserve the Freedom to Marry

Color me confused, but I could have sworn that every one HAD the freedom to marry. They just couldn't marry someone of the same sex. The same way someone can't just marry a dog or a telephone pole.

Of course you still have Mayor Newsom out there jumping up and down trying to get the definition overturned as lawyers for the city of LA, San Fransisco and the ACLU jumped into action. But I do have the question: When are we going to stop allowing our politicians to actively try and thwart the will of the people?

Let's face it, I don't agree with who was elected President (and for the record, if McCain had gotten it, I'd still not agree with it), but you don't see me out there saying we need to do away with the voting system, and that we need to ignore the will of the populace.

But, I'm not a Liberal, so I can't do that in good conscience.

I can't use the courts to create laws for me, because I believe that the courts shouldn't be doing that. I can't use the courts to create laws for me, because I firmly believe that it is a gross misappropriation of power on the courts part, when they granted themselves that ability. After all, the Constitution I read stated that Congress is the folks who writes the laws.

But again, I'm not a Liberal so there are just things that I can't do in good conscience.

Alas, what's a soul to do?

A Lesson On Human Nature

More fun from my coworkers!

I was talking to a friend of mine's little girl the other day. I asked her what she wanted to be when she grew up and she replied,"I want to be President!" Both of her parents are liberal Democrats and were standing there. So then I asked her, "If you were President what would be the first thing you would do?"

She replied, "I'd give houses to all the homeless people."

"Wow - what a worthy goal." I told her, "You don't have to wait until you're President to do that. You can come over to my house and mow, pull weeds, and sweep my yard, and I'll pay you $50 Then I'll take you over to the grocery store where this homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward a new house."

Since she is only 6, she thought that over for a few seconds. While her Mom glared at me, she looked me straight in the eye and asked,"Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?"

And I said, "Welcome to the Republican Party."

Her folks still aren't talking to me.

Though humorous, I could easily see this story taking place. After all, when socialist concepts are explained succinctly enough that a six-year old can understand them, they are often revealed for the utter stupidity and tripe which are at their heart. Liberalism and Socialism are only acceptable when they're crouched in fancy terms, big words, which always equate to someone getting someone else's money.

But you can't call that robbery--after all, it's "Legal."

Oh Noes! Not Orson Scot Card!!

I had originally considered posting this on my SF blog, No Krakana, yet the more I wrote, the more I realized that it would fit better here. So, on with the show.

io9 has directed my attention to an interesting discussion that's been popping up around the SF/F genre blogs. Mainly, that Card has won the Margaret A. Edwards award, which is defined as thus:

The Margaret A. Edwards Award, established in 1988, honors an author, as well as a specific body of his or her work, that have been popular over a period of time. The annual award is administered by YALSA and sponsored by School Library Journal magazine. It recognizes an author's work in helping adolescents become aware of themselves and addressing questions about their role and importance in relationships, society, and in the world.

Anyhow, they brought into specific focus, Card's two complementary novels Ender's Game and Ender's Shadow. Truth be told, these are two wonderful stories, with great overtones dealing with human nature, civilization, and just how a child transforms into an adult.

Yet, what's brought up the most hassles are some of Card's other writings, specifically his thoughts and opinions on homosexual marriage.

One can imagine the joys of the SF Feminist blog and (amusingly enough) the School Library Journal, and one can't forget the diatribes over in the comments for the article on io9. Overall, they've been along the lines of "well, he's evil incarnate for saying the things he does in his non-fiction essays, but you know, we'll just sweep it under the rugs."

Frankly, I'm amused by this whole thing. I can admit to being conservative (a night upon unforgivable sin in the world of the SF/F genre fandom) yet there have been liberals who have received lifetime achievements awards; though I despise Streisand's stance on gun control, that doesn't mean that I dislike her films or music.

But ultimately, that's an irrelevant point. Who cares if you can or can't separate the art from the artist.

Has Card not entertained, and taught a generation of children the joy of books? Do those books not teach us to try and see the other? Whether that other is the alien "buggers" or the bully who wishes to kill you?

As far as the Award is concerned, that is what matters.

Beyond that though, why the angst over his opinions? I don't agree with John Scalzi's politics but I absolutely adore his novels. I agree with Card's politics, and I absolutely adore his novels. Wow, imagine that, I love well-written novels that I find intriguing, regardless of the world views of the authors.

Fortunately though, the SF Feminist blog is more interested in actual discourse and discussion about Card's opinions and essays (including a well written dissection of one of Card's essays on the Mass. Supreme Court's fiat creating same-sex marriage in that state).

But that's not relevant to the discussion here, as it's a discourse on the existing articles rather than what we're talking about here.

What I find oddest is that all the comments that I've read have fallen on one of two sides of this divide. The first is that Card should have never gotten the award for being such an evil right-winger. The second is Card should have gotten the award because the two books in question are good, but he's still an evil right-winger.

And I do mean all, I've just spent the past three hours looking at every blog entry concerning this, and every comment on those blog posts. Maybe there will be additional thoughts from people on my side of the aisle now that io9 has pushed it out, but sadly I'm not counting on it.

I for one, am offering up a heartfelt "Congratulations, Mr. Card."

I don't think he's evil; I don't think he's ignorant or unlettered. I don't even think he's an "asshat" (sure the rant referenced in that article is nigh upon incoherent, but that doesn't mean he's evil, just that he has a hard time separating criticisms of his novel from criticisms of himself--an affliction which other authors have had many times).

In fact, I'm going on the record as stating that I believe the same way as Mr. Card regarding homosexual "marriages." I believe they are an attack, by liberal elites (socialists/communists), directed against the fundamental building blocks of Western civilization. Consider numbers, 25, 26, and 40 on this list of ways that Communists planned on destroying Western Civilization.

• Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
  
• Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
  
• Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

In fact that the number of items on that list are completed, or nearly so, is disturbing.

But, I do want to know what is it about genre fandom which breeds liberalism?

Timeless Morality

Time magazine has a "Morality Quiz" up on their website at the moment. Oddly, they take their approach to Morality from an odd source. Consider this quote which is at the top of the article:

The deepest foundation on which morality is built is the phenomenon of empathy, the understanding that what hurts me would feel the same way to you. And human ego notwithstanding, it's a quality other species share.

I'm confused. I have NEVER heard of morality having anything at all to do with empathy. The encyclopedia gives three principle meanings to morality

1. morality means a code of conduct held to be authoritative in matters of right and wrong, whether by society, philosophy, religion, or individual conscience.
2. an ideal code of conduct, one which would be espoused in preference to alternatives by all rational people, under specified conditions.
3. synonymous with ethics, the systematic philosophical study of the moral domain.

The dictionary is simpler, it gives these as definitions:

1. concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct
   
2. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
3. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
4. Virtuous conduct.
5. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.

Yeah, where exactly does empathy have anything to do with morality there? And just to be fair, let's look at the definition of empathy:

the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another

Let's say this again, empathy has nothing to do with morality. Whether I understand what hurts you would feel the same to me is quite irrelevant to the moral decision to do something. Of course, using the simplified morality quiz provided by Time, one has to wonder if morality is anything above and beyond life or death situations. These are some of the scenarios they provided:

• Could you kill a baby to possibly save the life of a group of adults?
• Could you kill an injured man to possibly save the life of a group of adults?
• Could you save kill a man to definitely save a group of adults?
• Standing close enough to push that man forward, could you kill him to save a group of adults?
  

Then all the possible answers are "Kill them!" or not. There are no options for sacrificing ones self in order to save all the others. Apparently that part of morality just doesn't exist for Time. Understandable, since they are liberals, and sacrifice is an abstract concept to them, which can only be imposed upon others, not something that wells up from within.

Truthfully, I'm uncertain why this quiz annoyed me so much, yet it did. Maybe it's just my ornery nature. Or maybe, I'm just getting older, and less willing to flow with the annoyances of socialistic policies and ideals which try to subvert tried and true methodology and ideology.

So, here's the scenario:

An out of control trolley is heading down a track toward five unsuspecting people and will surely kill them all. You could throw a switch diverting it to a siding, but an equally unsuspecting man is standing with you on a bridge. Could you push him onto the track into the path of the train? Could you do that, killing one to save the other five?

Pick one of these three options:

1. Yes, I could push them onto the tracks (65% on the quiz)
2. No, I could not push them onto the tracks (35% on the quiz)
3. I would jump on the tracks myself (the answer I would have chosen, if it were available)

See? That's how such a question should have been worded. But, maybe that's just me....

Breeding for Stupidity

I'm one of those folks, who firmly believe that if you raise a kid right, he'll go the right way (hey, it's a firm, Biblical principle). Overall, it worked for me. I'm happily capitalistic, pro-privacy, pro-life, a firm believer in small government, and a die-hard Constitutionalist. Additionally, I have a healthy disdain for the government, and anyone who takes the effort to attempt to tell me what the truth is, especially when they do so after repeatedly being caught in partisan lies (i.e. the MSM).

So, imagine my surprise, when I discovered an article on the Blogger News Network discussing those environmentalists who believe it's bad environmental policy to have children. The BNN article points on towards an article from the Daily Mail (an UK newspaper) entitled: Meet the Women Who Won't Have Babies... Because they're not eco friendly.

Frankly, I was dumbfounded at first. I have always found it hard to believe that there are folks out there who just don't want to have children. It truly does make my head hurt on occasion, as I ponder such things.

Yet for all the various reasons one could use to justify the decision to not have children, the concept of them being "not eco friendly" is just so off the wall, that in my ruminations I had never considered it.

I was flabbergasted; nigh upon shocked speechless.

And, as my wife would love to point out, it takes a lot to do that to me.

Of course, now that I've had a bit of time to consider things, and after reading the additional lunacy which is evident in the comments to said thread, I have to say that I applaud their decision. How could I not?

Especially, if you consider my view of things related to the rearing of children from the first paragraph.

Consider this, if all the nut job liberals stopped having kids, only the kids of us who believe in small government and the Constitution would be around.

Unfortunately, liberty through natural selection isn't fast enough for my taste, as there are enough socialists/liberals out there to make my life miserable today.

Need Help? Ask Big Brother!

Anyone that has talked to me about government welfare programs know my opinion about them. They're evil, and should be banned. Immediately. They have no place in our society, nor should they be allowed under the Constitution of our increasingly socialist country.

Or to put it into internet lingo: welfare = teh 3vil!!1!

Now, that that's firmly out of the way, imagine my surprise when I was coming back from lunch, and heard an advertisement on the radio. It talked about how when you need money, you know what the sound of help is - followed by the sounds of someone swiping a credit card through one of those scanners. They then go on about how welfare now has these handy-dandy debit-cards as opposed to the old fashioned stamps, and that you should call their 1-800 number because, hey, you to might qualify to live off of my taxes.

So, we have this evilness of welfare, and not only are they stealing my tax dollars to give to other people, but they're also using those tax dollars to advertise the program, so that they can justify giving more money away to people who did not earn it.

When did our government become this huge entity that felt it was okay to play Robin Hood? And then to waste money by advertising the programs?

What's your name? 4Real!

Okay. First off, the article of the day: NZ parents may lose battle to keep baby '4real'

So, the basics are, there's this couple in New Zealand who wants to name their munchkin 4Real when it gets here. Why? Because they had some odd epiphany that they were pregnant, and it was, according to them, some type of "for real" moment.

Stupidity of that statement aside, the problem comes in that the New Zealand has some type of government agency which polices what parents name their children.

Let me start off with saying that I think it's incredibly stupid that someone would want to name their kid 4real. I also wouldn't name my child Apple, Pilot Inspektor or any of the other insane things parents tend to think up these days.

If the kid in question wishes to take an internet handle of 4real when he's older, that's fine. That's the internet. To stick this innocent child with what is effectively an internet handle as his name, for his entire life, well, that's just sick.

Of course, the concept of a government agency telling you what to name your child is even sicker, in my opinion at least.

What right does the government have to tell these parents that they must name their children something specific.

To me, it is just more socialist, big-government evil, which seems to infect the entire world these days. If these parents want to call their children anything, it should be allowed them. They're (supposedly) adults. It's not like they're hurting anyone (future name-calling from the kid's peers aside). Why on earth, would the government have any interest in stepping in and saying something here.

Which is why I love the fact that we have the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to protect us here in the States from such abuses of power in the hands of the Federal government.

That said, Federal Judges, don't necessarily see it that way.

United Blogger's Union

TechCrunch brought me an interesting article via my RSS Feed entitled Is Blogging Ready For a Unionized Workforce.

I've always lived in a Right To Work state, where unions have to work doubly-hard to get you to join. Additionally, I've never actually worked at a job where a union had a hold of how things were run, at least for the jobs I was part of. I did work at United Artist Theatres my senior year of high school, and the projectionists had a union that he was a part of, but us peons down in concessions and the ushers weren't part of that union.

Also, I have never desired to be a part of a union. When I worked for Wal-Mart, there was a big push by various unions (mostly the grocery workers union) to get Wal-Mart employees organized. I just didn't see the point of the whole thing. I made a great wage when one considers the fact that I was (by this point) merely moving packages across a laser and smiling at customers. I had no complaints about the benefits package (health, dental, eye, 401K, stock options, etc). Basically, for all my whining about Wal-Mart at the time, it really wasn't that bad of a job to have. Maybe it's nostalgia or hindsight coloring my memories, but I don't think so.

Then to top it all off, I've read horror stories where people were forced to put up stickers on company vehicles for candidates that they did not support because the Union supported them (this was back during the '04 election, if memory serves it involved plumbers, Kerry and a plains state).

So, ultimately, I have never liked unions. I understand the historical need for them, but I frown upon giving a portion of my money to a group that do not necessarily believe in the same things that I do (another reason to not like taxes!).

And that is something else to consider. When you're a Union-man, you're kind of expected to do what the union wants you to do.

Then consider that bloggers have often been, well, not that good at doing what they're expected to do.

So, I read that article, and followed the initial link on down to the original Wall Street Journal article, and discovered, well, it wasn't that suprising. Even, reading the headline about organized labor I knew which side of the aisle these people were on, but here's the text:

A loosely formed coalition of left-leaning bloggers are trying to band together to form a labor union they hope will help them receive health insurance, conduct collective bargaining or even set professional standards.

So, surprise! it's the lefties at it again.

So, here they are, trying for health insurance (uhm, wouldn't blogging be considered basically freelance writing? Usually for free? Read that as self-employed contractor), conduct collective bargaining (I can only assume they mean for those blog co-opts, of which I'm not a part, and currently don't see myself joining one) and possibly set professional standards.

This last one kind of annoys me. Part of what I like about blogging is that ANYONE can do so. It's not hard to set up a Blogger site or a LiveJournal. Heck, I use Blogger as the CMS for my three primary blogs (this one, No Krakana and A Programmer's Dream) as well as the CMS for the main page of my family's website and my youngest son's site, and I'm working on converting my eldest boy's site to using it, but I must first convert his site's layout into a Blogger Template.

I'm not overly fond of some third party setting up standards (which can at times read just as easily as restrictions/regulations) about blogging.

I wouldn't even particularly like it if some group set up some arcane standards for my professional job as a Software Engineer that I had to live by in order to get work (we actually do have a set of Professional Ethics & Practices but for the most part they're common sense things, and it's not enforced, unless you join ACM or IEEE or some other computer society that makes you sign off on them).

Ultimately, I'm against this. Unilaterally and without exception. I don't see a need for this, nor the attraction. Additionally, I just view it as an effort for the Left to try and gain more control over Bloggers. Sure, that may mean I'm cynical, but you know, I'm fine with being cynical.

Free Speech, Democrat Style

While I would not personally hang a picture of a sitting President in my home or office, I would consider hanging a Presidential seal, or something similar. Of course not everyone shares my sensibilities. Case in point, a business owner in Lancaster County, PA has a photograph of Mr. Bush hanging in his stall. David Stoltzfus owns and operates the Upper Crust stand, when opening his business two years ago, he thought it would do well to display a picture of the sitting President. So he did, and it has been displayed there for two years now.

Of course, now that the Democrats have lost the election (okay, so it should be now that the Democrats were humiliated at the polls) a Democratic City Councilman is up in arms over the picture being displayed. Mr. Nelson Polite (the Councilman in question) went up to Mr. Stoltzfus on November 12 and asked the picture to be taken down. What were Polite’s reasons? Why since this was a public place, there should be no political paraphernalia, and since Mr. Bush did not carry Lancaster County, “it is like rubbing salt in a wound.” At least those are the ones he gave the reporter later on (click here for the newspaper article).

Let’s deal with that first reason to start off with. First, while yes the market may be a public place, Mr. Stoltzfus pays rent, as such he is able to display anything he deems fit. Secondly, our great nation allows us to have no lines on expressions of political speech. That is the essence of the First Amendment. If Mr. Stoltzfus wished to display a mock picture of Kerry and Little John in bed, that is Mr. Stoltzfus’ right as an American.

Of course, that is not the true issue that is affecting Polite. Polite is upset that Kerry lost. Now, in true Democratic fashion, he is trying to throw away anything that reminds him of his dashed hopes. So he’s trampling on the rights of a fellow citizen, Polite as a Liberal and a Democrat are only concerned about the rights of fellow citizens when such rights further liberal and socialist agendas. At any other time, rights are things to be stepped upon. Polite in his demands of city council to legislate free speech says “there should be rules.” Ah, the joys of being a Democrat, if you don’t like something, then you can legislate it to death.

Of course, Polite’s propensity to trample the rights of others notwithstanding, Polite’s comments reveal a deeper issue where Liberals are concerned. That of course is the plight of the offended. On November 12, when Polite first approached Mr. Stoltzfus, he requested that the picture be taken down because it offended him and other city Democrats (ah, that old salt feels good in those wounds). What this translates from liberal speak as is “I don’t agree with what you are doing or saying, so you need to stop.” Whenever a Liberal claims offense for their selves or some other group, what they are saying is that what the speaker is saying they cannot agree with nor can they logically defend their position against it.

The “OFFENSE” label has become the bane of logical discourse, for anything can offend someone, but of course the only people that get to claim offense at the actions or speech of others are liberals and those groups (or more accurately those who vote liberal in those groups) that are classically defined as liberal. Groups that are conservative and members of liberal groups that vote conservative are not allowed to claim offense. Just look at how liberals treat Mrs. Rice and Justice Thomas. Liberals, rather than being proud of what these two minorities have accomplished routinely insult and denigrate them because they are conservative.

Of course the entire appeal of liberalism is that it makes you feel good. It is government through emotionalism, which I consider the worst thing since religion through emotionalism. Of course maybe if enough Liberals learn there is no Santa Claus, they will grow up and stop living by their emotions. Government and business should both be approached with common sense and logic. If Legislation makes you feel better about yourself, then there’s probably something wrong with it.

Why Liberals Hate God

In the aftermath of the 2004 elections, we have heard a lot about the ‘moral’ voters and the religious right. Throughout the entire thing, we get constant bombardment about how evil these two groups are. Think of it this way, those eleven states that denied same-sex marriages (and I still get irked at that particular oxymoron), the battles against the amendments were based upon protecting the ‘rights’ of homosexuals.

What does that have to do with liberals hating God?

Think of this, where do our rights come from?

Could they come from the individual? Does each individual person determine his own set of rights? No, that concept is utter drivel. Rapists have no intrinsic right to rape. Murders have no intrinsic right to murder. See my point? If rights are generated by the individual then anything anyone does is within their rights. That leads to anarchy and oh so many deprivations up to and including rape and murder (of course NAMBLA would probably love the ability to have a right to pedophilia).

So, they don’t come from the individual could they possibly come from the Government? This is the Liberal’s solution. They want everyone to think that rights are endowed upon the electorate by the government. The problem with this is that it is merely an extension of rights are from the individual. The government, especially ours, is merely an extension of some group of individuals. In a royalty that group is a certain family, in a dictatorship that group is whoever led the revolt, and in our society that group is the majority. Of course the major problem with this concept is that if the government gives us our rights, then the government is allowed to remove our rights

So, since rights do not come from the individual nor do they come from the government where do our rights come from?

For that, why don’t we see what our Founding Fathers had to say about the rights they determined that we have (this is from the Declaration of Independence):

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

To far away in time, and let us not forget that Mr. Jefferson did not believe in a personal creator. He was a theistic humanist. He believed in God, he just did not believe that God concerned Himself with our welfare. So, let us look at something a little closer, how about President’s Kennedy 1961 inaugural address?

… the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.

Think about what Mr. Kennedy is saying there. Our rights come, neither from man nor from the state, but they are given to us by God. Of course if our rights are from God, that means they are based upon God’s ideals of right and wrong; immutable and unchangeable. God ordained rights would convey with them responsibilities and certain actions that are right and certain actions that are wrong.

This is why Liberal’s hate God. They want our rights to be given us by the state, for if they are then our rights can be modified on the liberal’s whims. Change the definition of marriage today, change the laws concerning pedophilia tomorrow, all in the name of granting more and more diverse minorities all of their proclaimed rights.

Liberals love the concept of the right without responsibility (though how you can have one without the other confounds me). As such, they have increasing taught this inane and pointless concept of “Separation of Church and State” (a concept that has gained hold in the past 40 years). Through the use of Liberal judges, the ACLU, the MSM and a subtle manipulation of the teaching profession, the concept of God has slowly been dismissed from the public realm.

On everything from teaching that Thanksgiving is a civic holiday to the recent lawsuit by a history teacher because he was denied the use of the Declaration of Independence to teach American History.

We must strive to restore God to the public realm. Replace Him in our history books; teach once again that our Rights come from on high, not from man or man’s governments and restore the concept of religion and government that is actually framed in our Constitution.

Who knows, if we do this,maybe just maybe, we will not have to face any more nonsense about oxymoronic statements such as homosexual marriages.