Qualifying Statements

The art of qualifying statements is something that nearly every politician has mastered. I have used it myself, notably in my Thoughts on Harry Potter before reading Book 7. Nothing I said in that post turned out to be incorrect. I referenced things such as "the apparent [emphasis added] murder of Albus Dumbledore," and argued that Snape was "not as [emphasis added] evil as it would seem."

In the first case, my "apparent" qualifier was warranted; it is revealed in The Deathly Hallows that "murder" is a bad characterization of what happened. In the second case, it turns out that my qualifier was not needed at all, and my proposition was completely correct.

I was having a conversation with my friend the other day, and he asked me a question about where technology was going. My response was so well qualified that, if examined closely, it conveyed no information at all; at most, it may have conveyed an opinion, but nothing more. I find it interesting how anything can be said truthfully as long as it is properly qualified.

2008 Presidential Candidates

Finding Out About the Candidates

It's pretty late into the candidate-selection season to be posting this, but I am finally getting around to doing so. My initial research into the candidates happened around Thanksgiving. I watched a Republican debate and liked only two of the candidates. At that time, I didn't register in my head the names of these candidates, only their positions on the stage and possibly their faces and voices. I grew somewhat apathetic towards the whole thing until I noticed a surplus of articles on Digg bashing Mike Huckabee.

After noticing this, I asked myself, "who is this Huckabee fellow, and why should I care?" I went on an Internet fact-finding mission. I found out that Huckabee was a God-fearing man, and that his political positions were, for the most part, in alignment with mine.

By this time, it was Christmas vacation. I began asking people close to me who they thought would make the best president. I didn't really get any definite answers. I would get answers along the lines of "someone else," or "I haven't looked into it." When I asked my dad, he said that he thought Alan Keyes was the best, but that Keyes didn't have a very good chance at winning.

Alan Keyes: The Best Man for the Job

At this, I did my research on Alan Keyes. I found Keyes to agree with Huckabee on many issues, but there were also disagreements. Keyes is the most conservative of the candidates. He is very strong on all the moral issues as well as all other issues. He is not afraid of being somewhat politically incorrect in expressing these views. After researching Keyes, I was fully convinced that he was -- and still is -- the best candidate for the White House.

There was only one thing on Alan Keyes's issues page that I initially disagreed with. As I started to read his argument for the importance of the family farm, I disagreed with what I was reading. I recalled the lessons I learned in my economics class last semester; economically speaking, family farms are of no benefit; large corporate farms would be more economically efficient. As I continued to read, however, Keyes acknowledged this and stated that family farms have an "indispensable value in sustaining our nation's strong moral character." I can agree with this point. I believe that one of the most threatening problems with this nation is its rapidly corroding respect for godly morals. If it hasn't been made clear, I believe that Alan Keyes is most certainly the best candidate for the presidency.

Mike Huckabee: A Strong Second

Sadly, Alan Keyes is greatly under-represented. In Iowa, his name wasn't even on the ballot! At some point in the near future, I fear that Keyes will find it impossible to win the Republican nomination. If he were to run as an independent, it would only serve to fracture the conservative vote and ensure that a Democrat won the election. (The Democrats have a frighteningly bad reputation with regard to moral issues.) Since Alan Keyes is basically out of the running based on the current state of things, this leaves me to fall back on the candidate I was initially interested in: Mike Huckabee. His positions on the issues are very solid and have not wavered throughout the campaign. One thing that differentiates Huckabee from your typical conservative candidate is his position on the environment. He asserts that we have not been good stewards of our environment, and that we need to do better. Now, this is all well and good with me until he decides to use my tax money to make it happen, or alternatively, to cause the prices of goods and services to go up due to government regulations on such things. Thankfully, this does not strike me as too-large of threat to deal with.

McCain would be a distant third choice for me, but my second choice is an order of magnitude better, and my first, an order of magnitude better that. Recently, with the exit of Romney from the scene, Dr. James Dobson gave a half-hearted endorsement of Mike Huckabee. At this point, I think that the best thing would be for Huckabee to win the Republican nomination, (which at this point is a stretch,) and for Alan Keyes to be on the ticket for Vice President.

The Democrats?

In choosing from the Democrats, it's a choice between the lesser of two evils. Because of his positions on the a few of the technological issues, I would prefer to have Obama as president over Hilary Clinton. In addition to this, the prospect of having Hilary Clinton as president is downright scary. The same is true with Obama, but to a slightly lesser degree. Strategically, I think Clinton would be easier to defeat in a general election as it would be easier to convince people to get out and vote specifically against her. This does lead to a conflict of interest; one would rather have the lesser of two evils on office, but the worse of the evils would be easier to defeat. I don't have a solution for this problem.

Conclusion

Alan Keyes is undeniably the best candidate. With him, you can have your cake and eat it too! Since Keyes doesn't really have a chance of winning, Huckabee comes in second as the best candidate with any chance of winning. On the Democrat side of the house, Obama is the lesser of two evils, but Hilary Clinton would be easier to defeat in an election.

Communism in Open Source Software

At first glance, in the area of technology, and more specifically, in open source software, it appears that there exists a thriving communist community. Now, everything that my other opinions point to would say that, in practice, communism is doomed to failure, and is a very bad thing (e.g. Nazi Germany, or the Soviet Union.) My initial thoughts on this issue told me that technology is an exception to my previously-stated opinions of how things should work. Upon further observation, I realized that the notable examples of open-source software successes have always had the backing of some corporation.

For example, Ubuntu, the most popular Linux distribution, is financially backed by Canonical. Another example is Firefox, which is backed by Mozilla who relatively recently formed a for-profit entity so that they could legally make a profit from Firefox. (Much of their money comes from advertising partnerships with Google.)

Additionally, you have the open-source database, MySQL, which makes money by selling licenses to use their software to commercial entities. MySQL was recently acquired by Sun.

An example that is closer to home for me is Fedora. This is my preferred distribution of Linux (and the one I am using to type this post). Fedora is backed by Red Hat who sells another commercial distribution of Linux.

Perhaps, the two most successful open-source projects of all are the Linux kernel itself, and the Apache HTTP Server. The Linux kernel has many financial backers, many of whom are mentioned on the Linux Foundation Members page. The Apache server is the most commonly used HTTP server on the planet. It also has many financial backers who are featured on the respective Apache Thanks page.

This post is turning out much differently that I initially thought it would. Don't get me wrong; I think that free open source software is an excellent thing, and that all that people can do to promote it should be done. Having been using free open source software almost exclusively for about three and a half months, I will say that it has reached a point where it poses a legitimate threat to Microsoft; it offers a viable alternative to Microsoft software to the average user. I could have used many more examples of open source projects that are financially backed by corporate entities, but I think what I have gets the point across. Even in the area of technology, communism does not work.

Having said all this, I have seemingly left out all the open-source developers who have donated much their time to improve the quality of open-source software. I would like to thank all those who have done so, and encourage them to continue their good work.

P.S. I initially had this as a rather large section of my previous post under the heading "Technology".

Politics: Where I Stand

In general, my position on any given issue will be conservative. My source for absolute truth is The Holy Bible -- anything that contradicts the Bible must be wrong or inaccurate. As a result of what I just stated, my opinion on any issue (excluding technological issues) will be in stark contrast to that of the Digg crowd.

Moral Issues

I believe abortion is wrong and should be illegal. By extension, I believe that embryonic stem cell research is wrong and should also remain illegal. I believe that there is nothing wrong with capital punishment. One thing that I makes no sense to me is why many "liberals" want to permit the murder or "abortion" of innocent babies, but wish to prohibit the governmental execution of murderers.

As far as marriage goes, I think that we should have a federal marriage amendment specifying that marriage is between one man and one woman. I find it absurd that such a thing is even necessary, but with the state of the world as it is, sadly, such an amendment is necessary.

Economical Issues

Taxes should be kept to a minimum. All they do is hurt the economy (also, I want to keep more of my money.) I think getting rid of the income tax and replacing it with a consumption tax is a good idea. (Granted, this introduces the problem of people spending their money in other countries, but I'm sure there are solutions to this problem.) I personally hate debt, and therefore, think that the national debt should be kept to a bare minimum. Basically, I think that the government should take less of our money and also spend less of it.

Smoking and Drugs

I believe that both smoking and drugs (for non-medical uses) should be illegal. Just because someone wants to destroy their lungs doesn't mean I should have to have mine destroyed as well by means of inhaling their crap. An article: "A Different (Conservative) Take on the Proposed Smoking Ban" expresses this very well (in relation to a proposed smoking ban in Iowa). It is argued that tobacco is a drug and should be regulated as such. My favorite quote from the article, "your liberty ends where mine begins," very well expresses why there should be such a smoking ban.

Personally, I will never smoke, nor drink (alcohol). When I see someone smoking, my opinion of him drops substantially; if someone doesn't have enough respect for his body to not destroy it, my respect for such a person is equally degraded. For some reason, I don't frown as much on people who drink with moderation. I simply have made a personal decision to never drink.

United Nations

The idea of the United Nations having any control or influence over the United States does not sit well with me. Its very existence seems to threaten the sovereignty and independence of our nation.

This actually brings up another issue: currency. There are many European nations that have given up their sovereignty by giving up their own currency and adopting the Euro as their official currency. I would like to believe that the United States would never do such a thing, but inevitably, some time down the road, either the United States will cease to be a nation, or it will buy into a global currency. I hope to not be on this planet when such a thing happens.

Technology

I believe I should be able to do whatever I want to with my technology as well as my media. The DMCA or Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 severely curtailed what people are allowed to do with their media. For example, it criminalized the copying one's DVDs to one's hard drive. It basically made it illegal to circumvent any sort of DRM (Digital Restrictions Management) scheme, "even when there is no infringement of copyright itself."

Another political technology issue is software patents. Initially, such patents were not allowed because software is nothing more than math, and math can't be patented. To get around this, companies described their software as hardware, and added a footnote that the preferred implementation is in software. Somewhere along the line, software patents became accepted. I am strongly opposed to allowing software patents. They do more to stifle innovation than to stimulate it. There are companies whose whole business model revolves around collecting these patents and suing other companies for infringement. A prime example of this is the Eolas suit against Microsoft for its use of web browser plug-in technology. Eolas won the suit. The prevalence of such patents strongly discourages new entrants into the market.

Conclusion

As you can see, my views are strongly conservative. If I did not address an issue here, either it slipped my mind, or I found it to be so much common sense that it didn't warrant a mention. (Sadly, there are many issues that fall into this category; they are such common sense that there should be no argument around them.) If you want me to address any particular issue, just leave a note in the comments, and I will update this post (or add another) addressing the issue.

Briefly: Politics

When looking at the things that each of the major political parties stand for, it amazes me that there are people who are in the middle of the road regarding the parties' views. The two parties core beliefs are almost perfectly out of phase -- that is, they almost perfectly contradict each other. The Democratic Party has very liberal views while the Republican Party has very conservative views. Though I have no data, it seems to me that these few-and-far-between people who are politically in the middle of the road are the people who decide the results of an election.

I happen to know at least one of these middle-of-the-road people, and, at least for this election cycle, we're both rooting for the same candidate. I will leave the issue of my personal political positions for another post as I am writing this between classes and am operating on very little sleep. (For the same reason, this post may not be as coherent as I would like it to be.)