A computer system should never, ever reboot without recieving specific permission from the user. The user should not be constantly nagged if they do not choose to give blanket permission.
I’m looking at you, Windows Update.
The new iPhone (the second generation one, which can handle third generation cellular networks) launched a week ago. As someone who keeps up with tech (and therefore Apple) news, I paid attention to things going on that day. I just have a few thoughts on the whole thing:
I recently had dinner with a group of friends and while there, talked with an elderly gentleman. He was the sort of person who said what was on his mind, and never pulled punches about his true thoughts on matters. It’s one of the stock characters: the old grandfather who has an opinion on everything (usually outdated) and is willing to express it (loudly).
As things are wont to do these days, talk turned to politics and especially the presidential election. He loudly proclaimed himself as a Democrat with some decent reasoning, and loudly complained about McCain. Curious fellow that I am, I then asked about Barack Obama, since I figured he would be an ardent supporter.
On the contrary, he said he didn’t like Obama, either. A bit confused (since Obama seemed to encapsulate what he liked about Democrats over Republicans), I pressed him on the issue, wondering where he disagreed with Obama. Eventually, the response I got back was simply “I’m just not comfortable with him.”
I thought about this a while, somewhat confused. This was not the sort of person who normally said such things, so I had to divine what his true meaning was. I’m also not the sort of person who likes to look at everything through the lens of race (as some people do, even when completely unwarranted). Yet as I thought about it and interacted with him on other things, I came to a tentative conclusion that bothered me.
I think what he meant was “I don’t want to vote for a black person”. I can’t verify this, and I hate coming to race-based conclusions, but I couldn’t think of a better explanation, especially in context of the rest of the evening. I think if we had a closer relationship or we weren’t in public, he might have been willing to admit it. But there was this spectre of not being able to admit something racist in public.
Racism is still a disease plaguing this county. But like file-sharing, the attempts of the government to shut it down and stop it has only driven it farther and farther underground. We dare not talk of it in public, for we know the consequences, but that has not actually changed people’s minds on the issue.
I have no grand solution for solving the epidemic of racism. I know of no way to just change people’s minds when they’re so set in their ways. But what I see is a racism that we now cannot talk about openly and cannot discuss, and instead gets relegated to the back rooms, where it becomes far more violent and far more dangerous than when it is seen openly.
I have no real conclusion. It is but an anecdote of life, and of how far we still have to go.
Today is the day Americans celebrate their independence from Britain. The choice of date is a little odd, seeing as the actual resolution declaring independence (the Lee Resolution) was passed on July 2nd, and the Declaration of Independence was signed on August 2nd. (Although in all fairness, the declaration was adopted on July 4th).
That document now has absolutely no legal bearing. Some people like to cite sections of it as rails against our government, ignorant of this fact. But it still has importance as a document in history—much as the Mayflower Compact does—and is worth studying, especially in our history. Its opening is one of excellence:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
What I find most interesting about the document, though, is that while it has no legal bearing, it in a sense proclaims the basic political philosophy of the country:
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.
But furthermore:
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
History classes (rightly) talk very much about how revolutionary the document was—no pun intended. And philosophically speaking, the very idea that a group of guys would openly declare this was astounding—although not as surprising as some people like to think, seeing as many of the ideas of the document had been floated around Europe for the century prior.
But a lot of people today seem to miss the fundamental philosophical basis for this proclamation. If you go back and read that very famous line:
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.
You’ll notice something very odd. It says “they are endowed by their Creator” (emphasis added). Capitalized. As in, God. That Judeo-Christian “I Am” God. Alpha and Omega. Creator of heaven and Earth.
Whoa, hold on. What about separation of church and state (a phrase that never actually occurs in the Constitution, no matter how much some people claim it does)? What about tolerance and religious understanding? Hey wait a moment, what about atheists, Buddhists, Hindu, Aztec, or any of the other five sixths of the world?
Yeah, about that…
See, when you look at the philosophical underpinning of the American Revolution, it comes down to the radical idea that when God created humans, He endowed them with something more than just a body, but a soul with dignity. Because God created all humans like this, all humans should be treated equally by law. That they have inalienable rights. None of this “king is more important than peasant” bullshit.
It all flows from a Judeo-Christian understanding of the world. I can think of no other religion that has this basic philosophical notion. It is explicitly stated in Galations:
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
There is, of course, quibbling to be done here on several accounts. Judiasm and Christianity have different views of sin and the rights of humans, for instance. Plus, there is that fun topic of slavery. And likely a host of other things.
Yet, as I consider what I know of the world’s religions (which is admittedly limited), I cannot think of another religion that has such a core tenet in its faith: that all men are endowed by a creator with certain inescapable rights, that the abrogation of such is sufficient to overthrow a government. It’s possible that it’s out there, and I would be interested to learn of other religions that have this ideal.
Even if there are, it’s still worth noting that the entire philosophical basis for the American Revolution (and subsequently the American governments) is very Christian in nature and ideal. It’s difficult to escape the religious underpinnings of our country, and it saddens me when people deny the obvious so vehemently. So I shall finish with the last of the Declaration, in which they once again cite a religious influence:
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
And the torrents of liberty should flow like a mighty river, engulfing all in their wake.