Activism & Beliefs
Foreword
Everything written here is my own personal convictions and does not reflect any views held by anyone other than me, including my employer, my band, or any other associates.
I don't identify myself as a "democrat" or "republican," and I generally consider anyone who unequivocally aligns themselves as one or the other is a narrow-minded fool (sorry grandma). I have "liberal" positions in some cases (mostly social issues and civil rights), and "conservative" positions in others (favoring less government). I tend to think of my views as a combination of "common sense and decency" rather than dogma of any particular faction. I don't state my views under the assumption that anyone cares, but to stand up and speak out for what I strongly believe in, hopefully inspiring others to do the same.
Technical
Progamming Languages
If you're a programmer, particularly a decent web programmer, there's a high probability that you've been exposed to more than one programming language. Some of the most popular options include Java, .NET, PHP, ColdFusion, and Ruby. If you've ever visited forums or participated in related technical discussions, then you know that each language has a fanatical community dedicated to touting its features and denigrating all other languages. PHP developers brag about its zero cost and open source nature. Java developers lay claim to superior robust solutions, extensibility, and portability. .NET developers tout their development tools and the .NET programming language being free. ColdFusion developers show off their rich features and rapid development abilities. Ruby developers also brag about speed and the easy syntax of the language. Once they're done talking about why their language is great, usually they go on to talk about how much the other languages suck. In many cases these developers have little or no actual hands-on experience with other languages.
The reality is that almost any solution can be developed in almost any of the major languages. There may be some specific features that are easier with one or the other, but there is nearly always a way. It boils down to personal preference. I'm glad that you're excited about your choice of language, I really am. But that doesn't mean all the rest are automatically garbage. I've used all of the aforementioned languages several times in projects, with the exception of Ruby (which I've played with some), and there are things I like and dislike about each of them. So grow up, stop flaming, and get back to work.
What do I like? I happen to prefer ColdFusion. I can build fully featured extensible applications much faster in CF than in the other languages I've used, and somehow it's just... fun. CF has so many cool features, plus it has J2EE under the hood so it can be extended in virtually any way necessary. The only real con to ColdFusion is that it's not free (a fact that other language fanatics harp on), but I've never had to pay for a license myself. If a client already have a ColdFusion installation, what does it matter to me?
Just my thoughts. In my experience if you're a good open-minded programmer who consistently learns, experiments, and develops tight solutions, you'll never be out of work no matter what language you prefer.
Social
Gay Marriage
What did gays ever do to you? Unless your mother was gunned down by the gay mafia, I'll wager you don't have much of a case. The most common argument I hear against gay marriage is founded upon religion, stating that the Bible condemns gay relationships and they are fundamentally wrong according to God. Everyone is entitled to their own faith, and if that is what you truly believe, then so be it. But don't attempt to legislate your faith and force it upon other people. Separation of church and state, remember? How would you feel if our country was suddenly under fundamentalist Islamic leadership, who demanded all women wear scarves over their head and required every citizen to pray five times a day towards the Kabba in Mecca? You would be outraged! Now apply the same standards to your religion (in this case, Christianity). If you would instead legislate Christianity upon the citizens of the country, then your stance is inherently hypocritical.
We live in a secular nation, not a theocracy, despite the wishes of some US leaders and evangelical fanatics. If you really want to legislate with religion as a basis, then first you need to lobby your congressman and representatives to officially declare the nation beholden to a single religion and announce that tolerance for other beliefs has expired. The citizens of the United States have the right to be notified that freedom of religion no longer applies.
There's also a lot of rhetoric about the sanctity of marriage. Some of this rhetoric comes from individuals who are in fact, proven adulterers, divorcees, or like to molest young boys. Are those acts not an affront to marriage? The divorce rate in the United States is over 50%. Celebrities often marry and then divorce within the same week. You can get married in Las Vegas the same night you meet someone. What sanctity is there in marriage that we're defending when two heterosexual people can marry so frivolously but two people sharing love and respect for one another cannot simply because they're of the same sex? If you really want to defend the "sanctity of marriage," I think there are a few other places you could start.
I've heard opponents of gay marriage allege that it's a "slippery slope" until we start allowing people to marry animals, inanimate objects, or any other number of irrelevant things. That's extremely insulting, because it equates people - living, breathing, thinking people - with animals and things. An animal or object cannot take a vow - with the possible exception of a parrot who has been taught to appropriately mimic the necessary words. Two human beings can take a vow and understand their implications. Since gay marriage has been legalized in Massachusetts, there has been no further legislation passed to allow humans to marry non-humans. Until we meet a suitably attractive humanoid alien lifeform, I don't think this is a gap we'll have to bridge any time in the near future.
Some opponents of gay marriage don't see the main problem as allowing gays to be together, but rather take issue with the label of "marriage." They said that marriage is a religious institution and is defined by the Bible as a union between a man and a woman. That's all well and good, but the real problem is that marriage has a legal definition and carries with it rights that no other legal patnership offers. The solution in this case is to remove marriage completely from legal government definitions and replace it with "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" or whatever phrase they'd like to be used. Give all the rights formerly assigned to marriage to this new designation. Both heterosexual and homosexual couples can then meet this standard. Then let the individual churches handle how they want to define "marriage." If a couple wants to be "married" in addition to their government recognized domestic partnership, they handle it through the church. What should not be done is establishment of legal definitions for both marriage and a "gay equivalent." That creates a double standard that is no different than the racial segregation of the 20th century.
All those other points are secondary to what I consider the real crux of the matter. Gays are denied the rights of full citizens. You may recall that other groups of people were formerly denied rights. African-Americans and blacks were denied the right to vote, as were women. The former used to be enslaved, and as recently as the last few decades were segregated and considered inferior. By denying gays the same rights as other citizens, you are treating them in exactly the same fashion and you are a racist. That's right, you're a racist. But instead of exercising your racism on someone with a different skin color, you're transposing that bias to someone with a different sexual orientation.
Being gay is not a disease or "condition" or lifestyle choice. Studies have indicated that there are biological foundations that determine if a person is gay, and they no more choose to be gay than you or I choose to be straight. Kind of the same way no one chooses to be white, black, brown, or any other color. It's part of your biological identity. Discriminating against that identity is no different than racism. I say racism because it has such a strongly negative connotation. No one wants to be labelled a racist. If you don't want the label, then don't be a racist - stop denying equal rights to people. If you want to tell me that gays aren't people, then please present me with the scientific study showing me that gay humans do not belong to the homo sapien species. Alternatively, if you insist on being a bigot, at least apply your bigotry equally to all people and let the world know what an ignorant, racist, sexist individual you are so you can be tuned out.
Finally, I have an appeal to the lawmakers. I didn't know we had solved all our problems such as the economy, foreign affairs, national debt, and the environment. With all these issues satisfactorily addressed, we can finally focus on banning gay marriage. Oh wait, none of those issues are resolved. So is working against gay marriage really the most important thing for our country? Maybe it's time to address these larger issues that concern all your constituents and serve them instead of persecuting them.
Am I gay? No, I'm not gay. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)
Abortion
This is one of those issues that isn't as black or white as most of my other stands. I can see both sides of the issue, and I think there is some merit to either side of the discussion. That said, I support a woman's right to choose. I don't think that makes me a murderer or a baby killer. First of all, I'm a guy. If a woman tried to tell me what to do with my penis, I doubt I would take her mandate too kindly (unless her suggestion was a good one).
I believe a life is not truly a life until the child has exited the womb and been birthed in totality. I have to feel this way because otherwise every time I ejaculate I'm committing mass genocide. Once a child has been brought in to the world, we have every obligation to protect and nourish it. But this notion of birthing every child at every cost every time seems very 17th century Catholic to me. Most Americans engage in some form of contraception because we don't want immediate families of ten or more. Mistakes happen. Condoms break. The pill fails. Thrusting an unwanted child on to a potentially unfit mother or into an already overcrowded foster care system benefits no one. Outlawing abortion will not stop it - merely drive it underground, leading to unsafe practices that will cause more harm to women and their potential children.
One aspect of this issue I can firmly take a stance on is all abortion should be legal in cases of incest or rape. Forcing someone to have a child after these traumatic experiences is immoral, dangerous, and not only bad for the victim but bad for the child - who will in many ways embody the abuse afflicted upon the victim and is at increased risk for becoming a victim of abuse his or herself.
Affirmative Action and Discrimination
Affirmative action (AA) is another one of those issues that is more personal in nature and less of a "common sense" issue. First it's important to note that I'm not a minority, although technically women outnumber men. I'm white, and although whites are projected to be a minority in America by 2055, of as this writing I am your typical personified establishment white male status quo. I cannot know what it is to be black, Hispanic, Asian, or any other ethnic minority; I have had no comparable experiences. I have never been racially profiled by the police to my knowledge. I have not had to use a segregated bathroom or sit in the back of a bus. So I neither can nor will sit here and tell you that I can put myself in those shoes, I can only describe my observations based on my own experiences.
AA policies seem like they were conceived with the best of intentions. There is little doubt in my mind that the rampant discrimination of the late 20th century needed such measures to counteract its effects and level the playing field. I am not naive enough to assert that racism or other forms of discrimination (gender, religious) have been eliminated. In fact I guarantee everyone has at least one personal or professional associate who has told a discriminatory joke or possibly hinted at some form of prejudice.
But as a collective country and society we are finally turning the corner on most forms of discrimination (sorry LBGT, I know you still have a long way to go). In a year where a black man (OK, half black) is the front-runner to become the next president of the United States, most people don't see skin color but instead evaluate someone on the content of their character. I hail from a generation in which the majority of my bosses in my professional career have been black men or white women. These men and women attained their positions through personal accomplishment and hard work. AA may have been a necessary stepping stone in the transition towards equality and fairness, but now it acts as a continuance of the very discrimination it originally sought to address.
If the intent of affirmative action is to award opportunities/jobs/etc. to an individual not on the basis of that individual's qualification or merit but instead on the basic of race, gender, religion, or any other related factor, then it is the very definition of discrimination. I know some minority individuals with good jobs and other accomplishments. If anyone were to intimate that any of their accomplishments were due to their race and not their intelligence and tenacity, I expect they would be very insulted.
We also have to keep in mind that sources of racism and discrimination are not limited (nor endemic) to the white majority. There are black people that unconditionally hate white people. There are Hispanics that hate black people. There are women that hate men, and people of both sexes and all races and religions that hate gays. Are any of these prejudices and feelings of hatred more justifiable coming from one group than any other? Some people might say yes - but as a society is it not more important to judge all discrimination as wrong? I find it very difficult to believe that most civil rights leaders were fighting for the opportunity of vengeance - that one day their constituents could oppress another group as they had once been oppressed and disenfranchised.
Hate is not resolved by matching it with more hate, it is healed via understanding and equality. As generations of older Americans with historical prejudices gradually die out, they are replaced by younger generations who never see these boundaries and these divisions. They see one people, one race - the human race. It's time to move beyond reinforcing artifacts of discrimination such as affirmative action and treat everyone as equals, letting them succeed or fail on their own merit.
Government and the Constitution
Social Security
It's just not solvent. Social security is actually the definition of a Ponzi scheme (similar to a pyramid scheme):
A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that involves paying abnormally high returns ("profits") to investors out of the money paid in by subsequent investors, rather than from net revenues generated by any real business.
When social security was enacted, there were approximately fifteen contributors for every collector. Now there are fewer than three contributors for every one collector. It is estimated that by 2019, benefits being paid out will exceed the payroll taxes being paid in. The government will owe more than it collected. This will only worsen as the number of retirees increases and people live longer, receiving benefits for an extended period of time.
In 2004, the United States government paid nearly half a trillion dollars in benefits. There is no money in the social security trust fund. The money that has been provided to the government via the social security payroll tax has been reinvested by the government for other means. The government has written an "IOU" to itself for that money.
There is no way to "fix" social security, because it is inherently flawed. But I understand that there are people in the present and near term future that depend on that guaranteed income and may have based life decisions around it. So here is what needs to be done - everyone who currently collects benefits will continue to collect benefits. Any eligible person with a disability will also receive full benefits. Any qualified veteran of any war (including Iraq and Afghanistan) will receive full benefits. Anyone aged 40 or above who has paid the amount required based on currently eligibility rules will continue to pay into the system and receive full benefits upon retirement. Anyone between the age of 30 and 39 can continue to pay into the system if they wish and receive partial benefits upon retirement (but not full benefits). That's it.
Most people under the age of 40 have long faced the inevitability that social security would never be there for them by the time they retired. We have prepared for it with grudging understanding that the hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars we will contribute to the system in our lifetime will never be reaped by us. So it is time for us to stop paying. You can't promise us the money later in life, so stop taking our money in the present. A phased plan should be implemented to allow workers to gradually stop paying in to the system based on the number of years they've already paid in. Workers in their upper 30s would be the first to receive amnesty. They could then take that money social security would have claimed and invest it in themselves. Meanwhile, younger workers would continue to pay in for several years to provide the funds necessary for the benefit of those who will still claim benefits as permitted. Faced with the prospect of continuing to pay forever and receiving no benefits (or passing the same dilemma to our children) or paying for a predetermined amount of time and then reclaiming that portion of our paycheck, the vast majority would prefer the latter.
This disenfranchises the young, but most of us have always accepted the fact that we wouldn't receive benefits anyway due to future shortfalls. It is impossible to resolve the social security issue without one demographic bearing the travail. We are willing to continue to pay with the hopes of an exit strategy that will allow this burden to be lifted from us in the approaching years. This is the only way to "fix" social security by providing the benefits to those who still need it the most while ensuring that we don't bankrupt our future.
Gun Control
This just seems like a no-brainer to me. Guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people. When was the last time you heard of a mass school stabbing? For you purists, we don't have to repeal the second amendment. It's become clear to me that prospect is a losing battle. But guns should be available for two purposes to satisfy fanatics — hunting and collecting. These firearms should be restricted to hunting rifles and disabled non-automatic collectibles. You don't need an assault rifle to take down Bambi.
Arguments about gun control all boil down to the second amendment to the US Constitution, which is one of the most misunderstood admendments in the Bill of Rights. The second amendment literally outlines the need for a well-regulated militia in order to secure a free state. In support of this militia, the amendment grants "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." In colonial times, having local militias was important because there were various factions (the standing army, assorted European governments, native Americans, wild animals, etc.) that could roll into town at any time and instigate conflict. None of these concerns have been relevant for over a century.
Furthermore, back in the late 18th century when the amendment was enacted, automatic weapons didn't exist. There were no rocket launchers, no assault rifles, no grenades, no armor-piercing rounds. In those times, you had muskets, capable of firing a single round and then requiring approximately six years to reload. Unless you were able to obtain a cannon or some other sort of heavy artillery, it was inconceivable that an individual could go on a killing spree in a public place with the weaponry available at the time. Given the modern day weapons available now, do you really think the founders would allow average citizens to have assault rifles or other near military-grade technology? We don't rely on local militias anymore, we have a federal military that handles defense.
The only seemingly logical argument for the case of widespread possession of guns is personal self-defense. Now, why do we need guns for self-defense? To protect against other people with guns. Take away the guns, and you take away the need to have a gun for self-defense. When everyone has guns, who suffers? People with guns kill more innocent Americans each year than people with guns save. Here are some statistics gleaned from independent sources, meaning NOT from the NRA and NOT from liberal Brady bill proponents:
- Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 43 times more likely to kill a family member or friend than to kill in self-defense. — Kellermann and Reay, N.E. Journal of Medicine
- Every two years, more Americans die of gunshot than American soldiers killed during the entire Vietnam War — National Center for Health Statistics, Department of Defense Almanac
- In 1996, 2 people were murdered by handguns in New Zealand, 15 in Japan, 106 in Canada, 213 in Germany, and 9,390 in the United States. — FBI Uniform Crime Report. Note: These countries have smaller populations, but if you extrapolate the numbers according to population, it's still not even remotely close
- A youth aged 10-19 committed suicide with a gun every six hours in 1995 - 1,449 young people in one year — National Center for Health Statistics, 1997
There are also tragic school shootings every year, the bloodiest to date being the Virginia Tech massacre. Some gun advocates have suggested that if the students had armed themselves they would've been able to prevent the slayings. That's like saying if a female rape victim hadn't worn a revealing outfit, she might have been able to avoid being a target of rape. It's another case of holding victims accountable for a senseless act. Arming all students - hormonal, emotional, alcohol consuming students - doesn't strike me as a good idea. I foresee fist fights becoming gun fights. Disputes at parties resulting in homicides. This applies to the population as a whole as well. I know personally during periods of intense road rage with aggressive drivers if I had a firearm in the car with me, I might be tempted to use it or at least brandish it, which could lead to escalation or retaliation from the other party.
Are there responsible gun owners? Of course. Let the hunters and collectors keep their specialty arms. But there are also gun shows where anyone - including convicted felons, mental health patients, and teenagers - can purchase guns with no background checks and no waiting period. It's true that even if most types of firearms are banned, there will always be illicit underground means of obtaining guns. It's just as true for guns as it is for drugs or anything else. But there will be far fewer guns now - less guns to end up in the hands of children and troubled teens. It'll be harder for the average criminal to obtain a potent firearm. It'll also be easier to enforce existing gun laws and crack down on criminals with tough penalties for possessing illegal firearms.
The solution to America's gun problem - and yes, it does have a problem - is not more guns. Other industrialized nations have shown that they can mitigate violence and create a safer society by limiting guns. It's time that America wakes up and follows suit.
Still not convinced? Go watch this video: Difference Makers with Doug Jackson.
Death Penalty
I'm neither strongly for nor against the death penalty, hence I support it by default. More to the point I think the states should have the power to decide and the federal government should neither prohibit nor require it. I don't see anything wrong with putting someone to death for murdering a slew of people. Opponents of the death penalty might condemn that as inhumane, but it seems to me as though you sacrifice your humanity when you commit such heinous acts.
The humanitarian argument has little sway with me - in fact the most compelling argument I've seen against the death penalty has concerned finance. Apparently the cost of the death penalty is very high due to the numerous appeals and, according to most of the estimates I've seen, is generally more expensive than life in prison for an inmate. If only there was a way to get executions on the cheap but preserve due process.
I don't think anyone can honestly determine whether the death penalty is a deterrent to crime. My gut says no, but I have no statistical or facts to support either side.
Patriotism
I've noticed that in roughly the last five years it's become increasingly popular to question the patriotism of Americans. Some times this has been leveraged as a political tactic - basically asserting "if you don't believe what I believe then you're not a true patriot." Even some times going further, to brand American citizens as the enemy. If you don't support the war, you're not a patriot and you're a terrorist. If you don't hate France and call french toast "freedom toast," you're not a patriot. And so on, ad nauseum. This spews from average citizens in addition to politicians and factional leaders in many cases as well.
It's ridiculous that it has come to this. Just because someone disagrees with an arbitrary position, does not preclude them from being a patriot. I would submit that this country was founded upon the very voice of dissent itself. A few examples of people who took unpopular positions that turned out to be pretty good ideas include Patrick Henry, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and Abraham Lincoln (even if his motivation was not based upon moral concerns). The first amendment to the US Constitution is the right to free speech - including the right to criticize the government. Not only is it your right, but your civic duty to objectively and critically analyze issues and reach your own conclusions.
What you wear (or fail to wear) has nothing to do with patriotism. I've never worn an American flag lapel pin in my life. I'd wager that most Americans haven't - I have no supporting evidence to cite, but anecdotally no one I know wears one. The symbol has little true value aside from serving as talking points for rhetorical bullshit. One can easily wear an American symbol while tacitly working to corrode the country and its principles.
All this finger pointing and labelling of people accomplishes nothing except for undermining a true sense of nationalism. Let's use common sense in declaring someone unpatriotic. Here are a few examples of things I would actually consider to be unpatriotic:
- Intentionally destroying a national monument or other site of historic importance
- Providing military, technological, or diplomatic US government secrets to a foreign government or entity
- Strangling bald eagles with rope made in China
I hope we can all agree that those are matters of consequence, and stop arguing over "freedom fries," which is asinine on so many levels in the first place. Questioning the patriotism of others does not make you more of a patriot. It's not a contest. Instead, use your judgment and turn your critical eye towards ways of improving the country. That's what real patriots do.
Religious
Religion
I'm about half Atheist and half Agnostic. I don't believe God exists in the way many people characterize him/her/it, but I do not outright reject the notion that there are forces beyond science and human comprehension that have governance over aspects of the universe. Everyone is entitled to their own religion - or lack thereof. Just don't force people to believe as you do through legislation. There is merit in science. Religion need not explain scientific phenomena, it should serve as faith and community for people.
Creationism vs. Evolution
And "intelligent design" is just a thinly disguised repackaging of creationism. So "no" on that account too. People that believe evolution is a farce now are the same people who insisted the world was flat hundreds of years ago.
Evolution is just a theory and has not been proven true. But it seems a lot more plausible than creationism and has some supporting evidence. There is no supporting evidence for creationism - only evidence in opposition to evolution.
It doesn't bother me that religion cites that there are things science can't explain, but at least try debating theories that have far less sound premises. I think what happened in the time before the Big Bang, or attempting to discern the instigating force behind the bang is far more interesting than how life evolved on Earth.