James Gosling: on the Java Road
Tuesday November 04, 2008
Sanity returns to the US: Thanks Everyone!
(Except for California, where the passing of Proposition 8 shows that bigotry is alive and well, and that the Mormon Church in Utah has a long reach... Damn) Permalink Comments [21]
Post a Comment:
Comments are closed for this entry.
The rendered image of yourself is quite neat.
Is it your Second Life avatar?
Posted by Mayuresh Kathe on November 04, 2008 at 09:37 PM PST #
奥巴马当选总统？
Posted by vic on November 05, 2008 at 04:10 AM PST #
The Mormons were only one of the "alien forces." The Knights of Columbus and other church groups from outside California added their venom and cash to the support of the bigots. It was most disappointing that San Diego went "Yes" and gratifying to see the general solidarity of the Bay Area.
Posted by Marty Heyman on November 05, 2008 at 07:49 AM PST #
Protectionism, redistributionism, and socialism are sanity?
I prefer free trade, less special interest subsidies, relaxation of H1B worker limits, and less taxes on capital investment in private industry.
It's disappointing to hear that one of the great minds behind Java is so opposed to those libertarian ideals.
Posted by giesen on November 05, 2008 at 09:19 AM PST #
Happy socialist day, if you even know what that means. Can I have your money, I need some gas and help with my mortgage.
Why work when the pies are free?
Do you have a user manual for Obamunism?
Posted by bill-tb on November 05, 2008 at 10:39 AM PST #
Why is it that any opposition to a liberal idea is immediately met with racism or bigotry charges?
There are two types of people in the U.S. these days: those that believe in freedom of speech and those that will defend that freedom.
Posted by dm on November 05, 2008 at 01:14 PM PST #
Discrimination and Prop 8: Why Dianne Feinstein Is Wrong
John Mark Reynolds
Culture, Politics
11.03.2008
Perhaps the most powerful argument against Proposition 8, which would restore marriage to what it has always been in California, is that it is “discrimination.”
Dianne Feinstein kept popping up during my Packer’s game to tell me so.
The argument seems to be:
1. X and X’ want to get married, but cannot under Proposition 8.
2. X and Y can get married under Proposition 8.
3. Treating X’ differently than Y is discrimination.
4. Discrimination is always wrong.
Therefore:
Proposition 8 is wrong.
Dianne Feinstein has missed the point of civic marriage. Traditionally, the government has supported marriage as a benefit to encourage the formation of strong families to produce future citizens. There may be other good relationships (friendship for example), but the state hands out no special benefits for them because it has no compelling reason to do so.
The hidden assumption of the Feinstein case is that marriage is a right and not a privilege. We should not discriminate in cases of human rights, but marriage is not one of those rare and precious things.
You don’t have the right to get married . . . not even under California law. You cannot, for example, marry a plant, a comic book character, or your mother. We (rightly) discriminate regarding the privilege of marriage.
On Privilege: A Hypothetical
As a US Senator, Feinstein has access to many privileges that I do not get. She gets nifty license plates, for example, that I cannot get even if I want them. Even if my lifetime ambition was to drive my own car with US Senate tags, I could not do so.
The government will not let me.
If I were to complain, then Feinstein might point out that I should run for the Senate.
Suppose, however, that I was too young to be in the Senate. I would not be able to get the cool tags based on my personal identity. Just wait, the patient Senator might say, time will cure that problem (as it already has in fact!). . . and then you too can run for Senate to get access to the privileges of the office.
Sadly, some hypothetical I might reply to Feinstein: “I am legally blind and shall always be so. I am already discriminated against in getting a driver’s license and so I will never get the nifty Senate plates in a car I drive myself.”
In this case, I have a permanent and relevant feature of self (sight) that will keep me from a benefit and pleasure that Feinstein has. This is discrimination, but it is not bad.
Discrimination is what makes a privilege a privilege. If everybody has it, then it is no longer a privilege!
Governmental discrimination is bad when based on silly, wicked, or arbitrary reasons.
My lack of sight and lack of a Senate career are good reasons to deny me my dream of tooling down the Pacific Coast Highway with my own Senate plates.
If marriage is a privilege and not a right, then it could be sensible to deny it to others based on several arguments.
First, it could be (as most people in the West have believed) that homosexual behavior is wrong. There can be no right to a privilege based on a vice.
Second, there is no vested civic interest in homosexual behavior, whether it is a vice or not. Homosexual behavior by nature will not produce citizens.
Third, children are better off in homes with both male and female role models. Even if a tiny group of homosexual couples will have children, the state has no good reason to encourage such situations, though it might allow them.
Fourth, if persons acting out homosexual behaviors are allowed to marry, then it is difficult to argue why this “right” should not be extended to any person who wants to “marry” any other person. However, history demonstrates that a benefit can become so diluted that it becomes meaningless. Homosexual marriage becomes a “gateway” to allow for the destruction of marriage as a meaningful category.
The Feinstein argument is not, therefore, persuasive. The heart of the Prop 8 opposition is that all opposition to homosexual behavior is silly or wicked. It is really about making a traditional vice (homosexual behavior) a civic virtue.
Here is hoping that California voters restore marriage as a privilege and remove it from the endless list of “rights” that are diluting our freedoms.
www.johnmarkreynolds.com
Posted by PeterB on November 05, 2008 at 02:38 PM PST #
Those who voted YES on Prop 8 are bigots? Brother! Many of the "bigots" who voted YES on Prop 8 also voted YES for Barack Obama. Voting YES for Obama if you're a white Mormon seems like a very liberal and tolerant thing, not bigotry.
You pout and start calling names when you don't get EVERYTHING you want from a political election? Many of the same people who voted to maintain a definition of traditional marriage also voted overwhelmingly for a black man for the highest office in our nation? Sounds inconsistent for a bigot. Are you sure that you're not the bigotted, intolerant one?
Posted by John O'Conner on November 06, 2008 at 12:38 AM PST #
Obama is elected president. Hooray the people have spoken.
Prop 8 is approved. Hooray the people have spoken.
Obama opposes states rights and federalism and will expand the role of the federal government in everyone's lives. Prop 8 is meaningless.
The people have shot themselves in the foot.
Posted by Rob on November 06, 2008 at 05:30 AM PST #
Sanity? Nothing new under the sun.
Says J. Gosling: "Sanity returns to US".
Says Teresa Anyango, vendor from Kenya:
"I am very happy he has won because there will be development here in Kogelo."
Says Charles Milonga, herbalist from Kenya:
"Everybody is very happy! I am so happy he has won because I know I will also benefit. There will be development here in Kogelo and new jobs."
See http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=arc_ayn_rand_man_rights
The Democratic Party platform of 1960 summarizes the switch boldly and explicitly. It declares that a Democratic Administration “will reaffirm the economic bill of rights which Franklin Roosevelt wrote into our national conscience sixteen years ago.”
Bear clearly in mind the meaning of the concept of “rights” when you read the list which the platform offers:
“1. The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation.
“2. The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.
“3. The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living.
“4. The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home and abroad.
“5. The right of every family to a decent home.
“6. The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.
“7. The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accidents and unemployment.
“8. The right to a good education.”
A single question added to each of the above eight clauses would make the issue clear: At whose expense?
Jobs, food, clothing, recreation(!), homes, medical care, education, etc., do not grow in nature. These are man-made values—goods and services produced by men. Who is to provide them?
If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor.
Sadly, the political system in this greatest country in the world is broken beyond repair. Jesse Ventura puts it well ( http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/ventura_palin_vp/2008/09/08/128860.html ) :
“In pro wrestling, out in front of the people, we make it look like we all hate each other and want to beat the crap out of each other, and that’s how we get your money, [and get you to] come down and buy tickets. They’re the same thing. Out in front of the public and the cameras, they hate each other, are going to beat the crap out of each other, but behind the scenes they’re all going to dinner, cutting deals. And [they’re] doing what we did, too — laughing all the way to the bank. And that to me is what you have today, in today’s political world, with these two parties.”
It is way past time for intelligent productive people to start using their brains, refuse to be enslaved and effect true change (not the mushy "hope, change" O-chant). Alternative is that we all go down the drains with the world-wide looting mob riding on our back.
Posted by Alex on November 06, 2008 at 05:55 AM PST #
I love that quote from Ventura. As Governor he always spoke his mind. Sadly as Governor, he too was laughing all the way to the bank but at least he didn't hide it.
Posted by Rob on November 06, 2008 at 07:31 AM PST #
Neither does Obama. He openly and honestly says to Joe the Plumber that he intends to "redistribute the wealth". And the nation of sheep walks out to voting places generously offering the wool.
Posted by Alex on November 06, 2008 at 12:54 PM PST #
Wow,
its amazing how much we think alike,
i've always defined one's sanity by whether they agreed with me.
So test your sanity with this belief.
Kerry and Gore had to lose for Obama to win in '08.
No Bush for 8, No Obama in '08.
Posted by doba on November 06, 2008 at 01:01 PM PST #
Congrats from the Old World Europe!
Posted by Karl Peterbauer on November 06, 2008 at 03:35 PM PST #
bush will be on Jan 20th! W00t!
Posted by MMORPG Forums - Runescape Anime World of Warcraft on November 06, 2008 at 07:42 PM PST #
The Mormons made 70% of the black community vote to approve prop 8?
Huh.
Posted by Roger on November 09, 2008 at 09:47 PM PST #
I think it's safe to say that James should restrict his political and religious jabs and keep focused on Java. Apparently when exploring outside the "sand box", he gets lost pretty quickly.
Posted by John on November 09, 2008 at 10:41 PM PST #
Hey James - best not to comment on what you're obviously not qualified to speak about (that would be desktop software and religion at least).
Posted by Richard on November 10, 2008 at 05:10 AM PST #
James, I've nothing but respect for your technical skills. I've used and loved Java for 11 years now. But have you given any real thought -- serious thought -- as to why it is morally right to take from one group of citizens to provide "rights" for another group of citizens? Your thinking here is inconsistent. Socialism is morally wrong, even if you are taking from the "rich" to give to the "poor". It also leads to all kinds of dependency on the State, the bestower of these "rights".
Posted by Jon on November 10, 2008 at 09:35 AM PST #
Well, sadly enough, the Mormon Church in Utah probably still accepts some people to marry 2 or more women, they also kept the remaining men in California from getting married to each other ?!;-{
Posted by CAT on November 10, 2008 at 04:52 PM PST #
The truth is that I've had my eyes on Jonathan S. for a long time. I love him, I love him. And I was going to pop the question just this weekend too. I'm horribly disappointed that I can't hook up with him equally under the law. Damn. I still have feelings for him, and that won't go away with a simple vote.
Posted by James G. on November 11, 2008 at 08:35 AM PST #