I work with a gay man. He has always been very nice to me, and from what I observe, nice to people generally. He is also very much against Prop. 8 (marriage defined as only between a man and a woman). This morning, I was thinking about what is motivating the gay marriage arguments.

The gays claim that their motivation is only about equality. I addressed this argument in an earlier post. It occurred to me, however, that the gay marriage issue is largely about perpetuation of gay ideology. Given gays cannot have children of their own, how do they perpetuate their ideology for future generations?

Gays have two fundamental problems related to perpetuation of their ideology that gay marriage helps to solve. The problems:

1. Religious morality teaches homosexuality is wrong and ought to be rejected; and
2. Because they can have no progeny of their own, their position is untenable in the long-term without government intervention. In other words, I can teach my children that marriage is only between a man and a woman. My children are likely to grow up reflecting this position (I can hear it now — I am indoctrinating my children… you bet I am indoctrinating my children with my values!! I rather indoctrinate my children with my values than have you indoctrinate my children with your values). Thus, absent government intervention, gays are not passing their ideology on to any further generations — their ideology dies with them.

Gay marriage helps solve both these problems.

First, gay marriage is a direct assault on religious values. It forces people who object ideologically to be trumped by the government. For example, doctors in California who objected to artificially inseminating lesbian couples for religious reasons have been sued and lost . They were told that they must perform insemination irrespective of sexual orientation. In other words, the doctor’s objections on religious grounds were snuffed out by a pro-gay marriage government. Similar occurrences have cropped up in Massachusetts, where Catholic adoption agencies are closing their doors so as not be be forced to promote gay adoption .

Gay marriage is an effective tool, therefore, in solving issue number one. By having the government take a position on gay marriage that affirms it as morally acceptable, objections on moral grounds are trumped by the state.

Second, because gays can have no children of their own, they are unable to perpetuate their ideology to future generations like heterosexual families. For their cause to succeed, they must perpetuate the ideology. It is difficult to change the minds of adults, but not so hard to change the minds of young children or worse yet, to instill the ideology as a matter of first impression before their parents choose teach the children about sexual morality.

Teaching children at an early age about gay ideology makes instilling a parent’s own, different values much more difficult. Children must learn (i.e., be indoctrinated) from somebody. As anybody with children will attest, nature has designed children to learn. They observe and reflect what their parents, siblings, and other authority figures teach them by instinct. Learning is born into us.

So who decides what children learn? Parents or society? Perpetuation of gay rights requires that society, not parents, do the teaching (indoctrination) of children, particularly young children. Case in point: where have gays primarily fought hard to make inroads: schools and broadcast media and the arts. In other words, the two most influential sources of learning for children outside of a child’s family. Indeed, the goal is to use these vehicles to usurp the parent’s ability to decide what a child learns.

But what about all those children who are taught to support gay rights from their parents? When and where did their parents come to accept gay rights? Go back a generation and you will find the same societal-based indoctrination of gay rights as today, just less pronounced. And it has been effective in building the momentum of gay rights.

As I mentioned before, I am not against gays. Frankly, I don’t care what a person’s sexual orientation is. But I do care what my children learn. And I do care about the free practice of religious belief. And I do believe people should be able to live their lives according to the dictates of their conscience as it relates to family issues: adoption, teaching, etc. I am all for giving homosexuals all the legal rights that married couples have to the extent that people with a differing view on the morality of the situation be allowed to voice and live by their moral convictions.

If homosexuals want to perpetuate their issue, persuade adults based on the strength of the argument. Don’t presume to indoctrinate our children with your beliefs; that is my job. Have your own children if you want a child to indoctrinate.

The next installment will be why homosexuality doesn’t fall under the penumbra of civil rights.

From the NY Post:

Joe Biden warned that America’s enemies would test Barack Obama with an international crisis within six months if he’s elected…

So let me get this straight. We are supposed to vote for a guy whose running mate is guaranteeing that we will have to face an international crisis from our enemies (i.e., terrorists) within six months after he is elected?

Madeleine Albright then chimed in with support of Joe Biden’s statement.

The inference from Biden’s and Albright’s remarks are that terrorists see an Obama presidency as soft — a good time to attack the United States. In other words, terrorists don’t believe that Obama will use our military to punish them as Bush did.

This is the point: Biden is suggesting that the terrorists are going to attack to determine Obama’s response. The terrorists know what McCain’s response will be. If Obama doesn’t stick with the Bush’s foreign policy (how can he and continue to have support from his base?), the terrorists will know that they have carte blanche to resume plans for attacks on American interests and possible on American soil. From all of Obama’s statements, we have a good idea that his response is going to be a diplomacy only response, which translates into more attacks.

Given Biden’s prediction, which is the better candidate for keeping us out of international crises and being attacked by terrorists?

A vote for Obama/Biden is to vote for another terrorist attack, and probably more than one.

A recent British study shows that disposable diapers are better for the environment that reusable diapers. Either way, I wasn’t about to switch over to save the hummingbirds any time soon.

A government report that found old-fashioned reusable nappies damage the environment more than disposables has been hushed up because ministers are embarrassed by its findings.

…

The report found that using washable nappies, hailed by councils throughout Britain as a key way of saving the planet, have a higher carbon footprint than their disposable equivalents unless parents adopt an extreme approach to laundering them.

To reduce the impact of cloth nappies on climate change parents would have to hang wet nappies out to dry all year round, keep them for years for use on younger children, and make sure the water in their washing machines does not exceed 60C.

This just goes to show that what is best for the environment isn’t always what requires the most effort.

I noticed that I have 9 drafts half completed spanning months. And in a nutshell, that about sums up my life.

My Dad sent me this article, which is interesting. I find the population discussion quite compelling.

To be fair, I searched the internet to find a good copy of the article. It was supposedly given at the World Economic Forum to a group of CEOs.

There are a number of people online questioning when and where this article was published. Many claim the speech was never given. However, these same critics tends to call the author names at the same time, which makes it hard to take their assertions seriously. Invariably, they assert that Herbert Meyer never spoke at the World Economic Forum, therefore the paper is a hoax. Others attribute this paper to the 2006 forum (which would seem to gel better with his take on Iraq).

I couldn’t find anything authoritative on way or another, even at the World Economic Forum website. It is plausible that this paper is by Herbert Meyer, but given at another event, or that it was given in one of the many official, but not always well documented, break-out sessions at the World Economic Forum, or that it is a complete hoax altogether. I could not locate an official Herbert Meyer website, nor is there an official (or even semi-official) statement disavowing this paper being his.

So, for what it is worth, read on.

By HERBERT MEYER

FOUR MAJOR TRANSFORMATIONS

Currently, there are [4] major transformations that are shaping
political, economic and world events. These transformations have
profound implications for American business leaders and owners, our
culture and on our way of life.

1. The War in Iraq

There are three major monotheistic religions in the world:
Christianity, Judaism and Islam. In the sixteenth century, Judaism and
Christianity reconciled with the modern world. The rabbis, priests
and scholars found a way to settle up and pave the way forward.
Religion remained at the center of life, church and state became
separate. Rule of law, idea of economic liberty, individual rights,
human Rights-all these are defining point of modern Western
civilization. These concepts started with the Greeks but didn’t take
off until the 15th and 16th century when Judaism and Christianity
found a way to reconcile with the modern world. When that happened,
it unleashed the scientific revolution and the greatest outpouring of
art, literature and music the world has ever known. Islam, which
developed in the seventh century, counts millions of Moslems around the world who are normal people. However, there is a radical streak
within Islam. When the radicals are in charge, Islam attacks Western
civilization. Islam first attacked Western civilization in the seventh
century, and later in the 16th and 17th centuries. By 1683, the
Moslems (Turks from the Ottoman Empire) were literally at the gates
of Vienna. It was in Vienna that the climatic battle between Islam
and Western civilization took place. The West won and went forward.
Islam lost and went backward. Interestingly, the date of that battle
was September 11. Since them, Islam has not found a way to reconcile
with the modern world.

Today, terrorism is the third attack on Western civilization by
radical Islam. To deal with terrorism, the U.S. is doing two things.
First, units of our armed forces are in thirty countries around the world
hunting down terrorist groups and dealing with them. This gets very
little publicity. Second we are taking military action in Afghanistan
and Iraq.

These actions are covered relentlessly by the media. People can argue
about whether the war in Iraq is right or wrong. However, the
underlying strategy behind the war is to use our military to remove
the radicals from power and give the moderates a chance. Our hope is
that, over time, the moderates will find a way to bring Islam forward
into the 21st century. That’s what our involvement in Iraq and
Afghanistan is all about.

(more…)

Definition of modern elitism: expecting the government to pony up $85,000,000,000 in tax dollars to bail out your company due to your mismanagement, then spending $440,000 on a retreat to a posh resort for your top executives days later.

Why do these people think that they are entitle to wine and dine themselves at our expense? Perhaps the average American who is paying taxes would like to use some of their tax money for a massage. Perhaps these sorts of expenditures are what made the bailout necessary.

In every socialist regime the world has ever seen, a select group of important people used the collective’s money to fund their own luxurious lifestyles. We call those people elitists — the rules don’t apply to them. They say all the right things, but what the do and how they live conveys a different message.

Just like the executives at AIG, who think our tax dollars should be spent on them for pillow mints and massages.

Gosh, I wonder who these sorts of executives support politically? Perhaps other elitists who think middle America clings to guns and religion…

(Uses without permission, but as a fair use, from The Homa Files)

[UPDATE...] To be fair, I wanted to see to whom the greatest percentage of AIG’s contributions went to. Because the title listed on campaignmoney.com is fuzzy, I am unable to drill down on the executives. According to campaignmoney.com, 62% of the AIG employees donated to the Democrats (many had multiple donations, but each was counted only once).

Caveat: No casual relationship can be gleaned from the above stats. All that can be said about the data is (1) those who have the means to donate are more likely to be executives; and (2) approximately 2/3 of those who donated lean liberal. However, all of this is conjecture from shoddy data that doesn’t give rise to much more than casual inferences that I would be hesitant to rely on (unless you are a global warming scientist).

The majority of AIG donations went to the American International Group Inc. Employee Political Action Committee (AIG PAC). Listed below is where the $$ goes. Notice that none of the money goes to Obama or McCain. 15 of 77 donations are to Republicans, which means 81% of these donations went to Democrats.

(more…)

Walmart updated its DRM policies in response to user outcry. Good call, although not sustainable indefinitely.

Here is the letter that came via email last night:

NOTE: This is a follow-up to our email titled "Important Information
About Your Digital Music Purchases" from 9/26/08.

Based on feedback from our customers, we have decided to maintain our
digital rights management (DRM) servers for the present time.  What this
means to you is that our existing service continues and there is no
action required on your part.  Our customer service team will continue
to assist with DRM issues for protected windows media audio (WMA) files
purchased from Walmart.com.

While our customer support team is available to assist you with any
issues, we continue to recommend that you back up your songs by burning
them to a recordable audio CD. By backing up your songs, you insure
access to them from any personal computer at any time in the future.

We appreciate your support and patience as we work to provide the best
service possible to you.  As we move forward with our 100% MP3 store,
we’ll continue to update you with key decisions regarding our service
and your account via email.

Thank you for using Walmart MP3 Music Downloads.

The Walmart Digital Music Team

The day after I posted my original entry on Walmart’s DRM decision , I was contacted by a lawyer who wanted me to sue Walmart. Obviously, he hadn’t closely read my post because I was merely arguing was that DRM isn’t a platform that can survive in the long term.

This attorney was out to make himself a quick buck at Walmart’s expense. I really detest this type of lawyering. Actually, he should probably be reported to the California Bar because contacting me directly because he wanted me to sue Walmart is likely unethical .

Here is the email chain:

(more…)

I watched the presidential debate tonight between Brock Obama and John McCain. Yes I was bored. I had heard all of the same sayings from each of the candidates, and I am sure that if I went to one of the fact check websites I would find that both told half of the truth most of the time.

The problem with the current debate format is they allow each candidate to play Monday-morning-quarterback on every issue. "If I had been in charge, X wouldn’t have happened. Blah blah blah. I therefore have such great judgment. Blah blah blah. Although I have no idea what will really happen with the [economy, war, country] if my policies are enacted, here is what will happen. Blah blah blah."

What do we really learn about the candidates from these debates? Hardly anything.

So I propose a new debate format.
1. Go back to policy style debates. In other words, one narrow topic only per night. Each candidate selects a topic to present a plan on. Iraq, sub-prime loan crisis, etc., selected from a large pool of sufficiently narrow topics. The candidate who selects the topic is the negative side. Affirmative gets 20 minutes to lay out their position. 5 minutes cross examination period to cross examine the affirmative position. 20 minute alternate position proposed. 5 minute cross examination period to cross examine the alternate position. Then the opponents alternate between 4 rounds of rebuttal periods of 5 minutes each with the affirmative having the last say.

This means no moderator. No silly questions that cannot be answered in 90 seconds. When a candidate is out of time, their mike is automatically shut off with no extensions. One topic gets thoroughly explored and the candidates must give details about "their plans."

2. One debate is a completely fictitious fact pattern scenario. Each candidate is given the scenario some predetermined amount of time prior to the debate. Then each candidate sets forth a plan for dealing with the situation in a way that that other candidate is not apprised of the other candidate’s plan until after giving their plan. Then the candidates interact rebutting the other candidate’s plans. A coin toss determines who is gets the last say.

These two debate suggestions, while not perfect, require candidates to demonstrate their judgment. Ultimately, what a debate is about is deciding who has the best judgment, which translates into plans. We know what their parties are, and we generally know their platforms. I get sick of hearing the candidates become demagogues, promising what they and the rest of the world know they can never deliver in vague statements that have no practical meaning.

Let’s hear them think on their feet and argue the pros and cons of their positions. Let’s see what they will do in a fictitious situation that calls for immediate decisions (e.g., Turkey gets attacked by Israel — Turkey being a NATO ally requires us to consider the attack an attack against us by one of our non-Nato strongest allies… what would you do??)

I finally got around to it. It is a work in progress, and I am not sure the colors really work, but it is an improvement over the previous version (I think).

Completely random thought…

I was thinking the other morning while I showered (I do a lot of that at 5:30 AM when I wake up because I can’t handle TV that early, nor would it be a good move to wake up the wife and children), what is the one modern technology that would make it really hard for me to live 100 years ago?

My answer: hot water on demand. I could do without a car, without TV, without the internet. But my life would be pretty miserable without hot water. And it isn’t even about cleanliness as much as it is about relaxing in a hot shower or hot bath.

OK that was random.