Culture
Life here is slower, but the interruptions offered by technology have impacted suburbanites and urbanites just the same. PTA moms and barbecue-grilling dads may see initially see the Apple Watch as yet another tool forcing us to stay connected, but really, the opposite is true.
Like our city-dwelling counterparts, we also spend too much time tapping on small screens, while ignoring the vistas in front of us. We, too, carry around the guilt of having missed moments, while having forgotten the people in front of us. We stress over phones at dinner tables. Over eyes fixated on digital conversations, instead of spoken ones.
The Apple Watch’s promise is the ability to break that cycle. How ironic that is. We once paid Apple time and again for the privilege of using its many devices. And now – oh how clever, Apple! – we must pay again for the privilege of being able to stop.
TechCrunch
Growing up in a small town in Southern Illinois, I miss the slowness of life at times. Except at midnight when I’m in the mood for a burger and no McDonald’s within 15 minutes is open late, far less 24/7. Great to hear another perspective on the Apple Watch. Will this gadget move us towards not using our gadgets as much in public?
Permalink
The Watch is the first device that’s encouraged me to spend as little time as possible with it, or with any of the other electronic sinkholes around my office, my home, and in my pockets. It’s the first product that lives in this world, offering a small, brief window into the digital one - instead of being a portal that envelopes us, pulling us into another place to be held hostage by our own need for novelty and trivial diversion.
Matt Gemmell
I love that line “first product that lives in this world.” From what we’ve heard, Apple’s intent was just this. Allow you to step away from your phone more. Be more present.
Permalink
Yup, they forced one of their own to apologize for stretching out a hand to those they oppose, looking for middle ground and dialogue.
Ian Reisner, a hotelier whose properties have been subject to boycott calls since news of the meeting broke, wrote on Facebook that he made "a terrible mistake" by agreeing to host Cruz, who is adamantly opposed to gay marriage.
MSNBC
MSNBC makes it look like Reisner had a change of heart. But to quote the article from Bloomberg:
"Hundreds of people are contacting us to organize and help," said the organizer via email. "We will be meeting with a number of local gay rights organizations in the next few days to see how we want to collectively approach this unfortunate situation. We are a very powerful community -- as evidenced by what just occurred in Indiana and last year in Arizona. The thought of one dollar spent at their bars and hotels making its way into the campaign coffers of anti-LGBT elected officials is outrageous. If we have to shut the place down to prevent that from happening, we will."
Shut them down. These threats from the Left are becoming the norm for Christian business owners. But to leveled against a gay business owner, from what I can tell, is a new low. With non-stop threats over the weekend, it makes sense that Reisner would have a change of heart. Lose his business to stand with someone that disagrees? No brainer. No. Brainer.
Permalink
"If these cultural Marxists won't even tolerate leaders in their own community like Reisner having a peaceful dialogue with the other side, then it's not a movement but an inquisition."
Dialogue. It used to be that we could reach across the aisle and talk with our opponents. Ask them questions. Seek to understand them. And now? Now anyone that disagrees with the Left needs to be silenced. No matter if they are the CEO of Mozilla or the owner of a mom & pop pizzaria. We have a problem.
"I'm not sure where their intolerance leads," said Cruz campaign spokesman Rick Tyler. "Are they going to boycott TV networks and their advertisers that interview Ted Cruz? Book stores that sell his books? How about the hotels that host his events. Where does it end?"
Bloomberg
What does Cruz support on the matter of marriage? That it should be decided on a state-by-state level. That is constitutional, after all. If the Constitution doesn’t specifically give the federal government power over something, that something is then in the power of the state governments. Cruz believes that the Supreme Court throwing out state laws that back DOMA is unconstitutional. It is. Because the federal government doesn’t have power over marriage.
So the Left is trying to shut Cruz up. And because the gay men that own this hotel that Cruz had a fireside chat at were willing to open dialogue with him, they need to be shut down, their business ruined.
Makes sense.
Permalink
In their minds, there exists the fundamental human right to a wedding cake, but not to life itself.
Regarding that which made me sick and that which makes me a bigot.
Speaking of which, interestingly, we’re told gays have the right to marry and buy cakes and so forth because gay is not a choice. And gay is not a choice, they say, because gays are gay from birth. And if gays are gay from birth, then the matter is genetic, and if it’s genetic then gays are gay even before birth. But if gays are gay before birth, then it would seem that they were them in the womb. In other words, whatever their nature is, their essence, they had that, they were that, in the womb. And if they are now what they were then, and were then what they are now, then either they’re people now and they were people then, or they weren’t people then and they aren’t now.
Such great words here.
A creature is whatever it is. It can adapt and change and grow, but it cannot alter its nature. It cannot morph from one essence to another. Once it is, it is. It cannot be just a potentiality. The moment it becomes, it is an actuality, not a potential actuality. You can’t be mere potential, because then you wouldn’t be, do you see?
Duh.
Look, this is elementary logic. Like, well below first grade level. So elementary that children (or “half-people,” using liberal terminology) understand it on an instinctual level. They might have to learn what a horse or a pig is, but once they’re taught, they’ll likely never ask whether a horse can be a horse but not a horse at the same time. No, it’ll take at least 12 years of public school and four years at college for them to get that dumb.
The Blaze writes a great article, again, that calls out the hypocrisy and stupidity of the progressive movement.
Permalink
Religious freedom restoration act. Provides that a state or local government action may not substantially burden a person’s right to the exercise of religion unless it is demonstrated that applying the burden to the person’s exercise of religion is: (1) essential to further a compelling governmental interest; and (2) the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest. Provides that a person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a state or local government action may assert the burden as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding, regardless of whether the state or a political subdivision of the state is a party to the judicial proceeding. Allows a person who asserts a burden as a claim or defense to obtain appropriate relief, including: (1) injunctive relief; (2) declaratory relief; (3) compensatory damages; and (4) recovery of court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.
This is the law that was passed in Indiana last week. Take a minute and read it over.
Now look at the response to it in the media. Look at all the people going ape-shit crazy over this.
Religious freedom = the right to discriminate against gays!
Wow. Just wow. And none are sharing why this law came to be.
Last month I published an article titled A Case of New Tolerance and Ignorance. In it, I quote The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English on the definition of tolerance:
“showing willingness to allow the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with”
And then I shared the definition that most people today believe to mean tolerance:
“showing willingness to accept opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with”
A subtle difference, but a significant one. We have shifted the term from meaning that one allows the existence of differing opinions and behavior to meaning that one accepts differing opinions or behavior.
Along with this shift, the word “bigot,” which is directly tied in definition to the word “tolerance,” has also been changed. So instead of a bigot being a person not allowing alternative views and lifestyles— like the Muslims that are throwing gays off rooftops— a bigot is instead a person that doesn’t accept and embrace the gay lifestyle.
Defining the terms is always important in a debate.
This is a huge change. While Christians have always been considered to be tolerant, we are now being singled out as the most intolerant. Even though Muslims are throwing gays off rooftops. Muslims are throwing gays off rooftops and the media is practically ignoring them, but a bakery chooses not to provide their service for a gay wedding and they are swarmed with media attention calling them the worst things allowed in civilized society.
Now, you are a smart person. How do I know this? Because you’ve held your cool to this point in this article. “[L]et every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger.” We should really live by that verse more. Even if you are not a believer in Jesus, doesn’t it just make sense. The American media in the last couple decades have become quick to speak, quick to anger, and very seldom do they wish to hear opposing views. A wise person listens first. A wise person responds with calculated words.
Even if you do not agree with me. Even if you adamantly disagree with me. Don’t you really want us to be closer to that original definition of tolerance than the latter? Forcing a person to agree with you by lawsuit proves nothing. It’s like nuking another country. You haven’t proven who’s right, but who’s left. Accept that other opinions exist and that this is a good thing. If everyone agreed on everything, I don’t think life would be much fun. Imagine that the only restaurant around is Taco Bell. We can agree to disagree. I’m okay with this. Are you?
Permalink
America’s business community recognized a long time ago that discrimination, in all its forms, is bad for business. 1
I must ask, Mr. Cook, does Apple discriminate in any way? Or have you narrowed your definition of discrimination to fit the needs of your view? Last I checked, Apple Stores have an age limit of 18 to hiring employees.2 Apple doesn’t allow certain common practices in their Asian factories3, such as hiring young people and working long hours. Apple, at the launch of many products, restricts the number of purchases per person and sometimes has avoided sales to obvious foreigners because of the resale markets.
There are many forms of discrimination. Mr. Cook is right on this. But not all forms are bad. In fact, many forms are really good and help grow business. While not hiring 16 year olds prevents many from getting a job at an excellent employer, it also allows Apple to start their wage rates at a much higher number, far above minimum wage. While not allowing foreigners to buy their products in bulk might rub some wrong, it allows for those that want to buy their product from the business the chance to do so.
Businesses discriminate in many ways and must to survive.
That said, there are some forms of discrimination that are clearly wrong. Not hiring someone because of the color of their skin: wrong. Not serving someone because they are gay: wrong. But that isn’t what these religious freedom laws are seeking to allow. The law passed in Indiana is to allow religious conviction to play a role in providing services. Could it be used in a malicious way? Maybe, as many laws could. But the problem is the many bakeries and photographers that have been sued out of business because of refusing to provide certain services, namely gay weddings.
This is what seems to be difficult for many to understand. As a web developer, I cannot in good faith take a lot of different jobs. I left my last job because of the sexual harassment of a female coworker and the lack of response of my managers to it. I almost left the job before that because my boss was considering taking on a website for a strip club. Would I take on a project from a gay client? That isn’t the question to ask for me. It depends on the type of project more than the orientation of the client.
Anyone in the creative business has faced these issues. If you haven’t yet, you will. We must choose what clients we wish to take on.
But the media is saying that this could be used by a Christian restaurant owner to deny service to a gay person. Could it? I doubt it. The law states that action “may not substantially burden a person’s right to the exercise of religion.”4 A restaurant providing food for a gay person does not “burden” a Christian. In fact, it’s what Jesus would have done.5 Does making a cake “burden” a Christian baker? Yes, because they are participating in something they consider wrong. 6
There are many things that Apple considers wrong that they discriminate against. Look at how selective they are on their factories and the restrictions they put on their business decisions. The things that Apple opposes in these factories are standard practice in these cultures. Most other tech companies don’t require the same rules be met.
For the Christian, it is the same. Many of the lawsuits coming against bakers are coming from customers that have been coming to the bakery for years, if not decades. These bakers haven’t discriminated against their clients unilaterally. They have time and again served these homosexuals without issue. But the bakers say they don’t make cakes for this one event and then they get sued. They are not discriminating against the homosexual, but the event. Just like many bakeries do not do weddings, these bakeries do not do this type of event.
Ultimately, it is a business choice. As Mr. Cook says, “America’s business community recognized a long time ago that discrimination, in all its forms, is bad for business.” If it is bad for business, those businesses wouldn’t get clientele. They would be shunned by the community. But instead of that being good enough, some homosexuals have taken it upon themselves to sue them for tens of thousands of dollars. Because they won’t make a cake. Where I grew up, that was called a tantrum. And just like the lady that sued McDonald’s for serving hot coffee, the courts are giving them what they want. So now the pendulum is swinging the other direction and protection is being added to prevent this from happening to more businesses. If you don’t like how I run my business, take your business elsewhere.
Permalink
The mother, Michelle Wilkins, answered a Craigslist ad for baby clothes on March 18.
When she arrived at the purported seller's home in Longmont, she was attacked, beaten, cut open and her fetus was removed. The baby did not survive.1
The horror of this act is incredible. But more over:
After the attack, prosecutors said it may be hard to muster a murder charge. Colorado state law does not recognize a fetus as a person, unless it is capable of surviving for a period of time outside the womb, a prosecutor said then.1
Colorado doesn’t consider a unborn baby a person. This is because of abortion supporters, “pro-choicers.” You want the law to protect your “choice” to rip your unborn child from your womb, limb-from-limb, and not be called the murderer that you are, but the consequence is that women can be brutally attacked and have their unborn children removed by force and the only charge that can be brought against their attacker is “unlawful termination of a pregnancy”2 and assault charges against the mother. Because you want the choice to murder your child, anyone can murder an unborn child and get away with it.
This is fucked up.
Permalink
How much time do you waste on your phone? I know I waste a lot. Over the weekend I took a break (mostly) from tech and headed out to Starved Rock State Park for a hike. There is zero signal in the majority of the area. We got lost on the way out to the park and had no signal to use Google to find our way. I had to use my nature skills to continue heading west and hope I hit something. It was a joy to not be tethered. Do you take a break from time to time or are you always on?
Permalink
In response to letters from the Freedom From Religion Foundation, a group that clearly hasn’t read the Constitution that says we have a “freedom of religion,” a Texas Superintendent wrote the following:
Recently, I have been contacted by two concerned residents of White Oak ISD and legal counsel from the Freedom From Religion Foundation concerning the use of scripture in the “Thought for the Day” at the high school.
The residents were offended at the use of scripture, demanding that it be stopped and calling for disciplinary action against Mr. Noll. I am fully aware of the practice at the high school and will not pursue any action against our High School Principal or any other member of our faculty/staff concerning this issue.
The letter from the FFRF is not the first received by the district. They contacted us in the fall with concerns about the practices at our football games. I have responded in accordance with their stated concerns and we have moved on.
Let me be clear, this is an attempt to draw us into a contest of words for the sole purpose of giving the FFRF a large amount of free press/recognition that they and their very few members (1,200 in Texas) do not deserve. This group and others like it, are wanting us to provide them with negative quotes to use in the promotion of their agenda. We can and will make the adjustments needed to ensure our students experience a morally sound, positive character based education. There are a multitude of options to provide our students, faculty and staff the opportunity to express their First Amendment Rights as provided for in the United States Constitution. Let me also be clear that we have not (in my opinion) violated anyone’s rights and/or subjected anyone to undue stress. Bible studies and scriptures are allowed in schools. The requirement is that the material be presented in a neutral manner. It is my position that we met that standard with the morning announcements.
My recommended response to the FFRF is, “I’m sorry you feel that way. I will be praying for you and your staff daily.”
Finally, as a Christian Brother, it will not promote the values we hold so dear to assail those that disagree with the Gospel. We will state our case. We will make sure our rights are just as protected as anyone else that lives in this great country. We will continue to provide for all the needs of our students and we will do so while traveling the High Road. Don’t get drawn into a game of words that has no “winner”.
Please do not waste your time and effort on these few detractors.
KETK
Instead of pansying away like many schools have when threated in similar manners across our nation by the religious anti-religion group, this man stood his ground. Thank you, Superintendent Michael Gilbert. You make me want to move to Texas.
Permalink