New Hampshire’s decision yesterday to allow its gay and lesbian residents to have legal rights equivalent to marriage is not only a just and equitable thing to do. It is also a smart way for the state to keep its economic edge.
Mind you, I think it is terrific that New Hampshire is giving equal rights and privileges to gays and lesbians through progressive acts like legally recognizing civil unions. The religious community will doubtless argue to death the morality of the issue, but it is not arguable from the standpoint of American values. While it took the United States a while to extend equal rights to women and minorities, we eventually did the right thing. It was hard to get past our own Declaration of Independence that declared all people equal in the eyes of the law. Those who dismiss the declaration as a historical but not a legal document need only look at the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits the federal government or any state from giving preference to one individual or group over another. Slowly states and courts are wakening up to the fact that it may be unconstitutional if gays and lesbians are not given equivalent rights of heterosexuals, because otherwise they do not really have equal protection under the law.
It can be taken for granted that New Hampshire’s decision is going to ruffle feathers. It takes a generation or two for both minds and hearts to change. Yet change they will. Much of our latest generation is growing up in a multicultural America. In my generation (the Baby Boomers), homosexuality was rarely acknowledged openly. In fact, I was a teen before I had much of an inkling of just how prevalent homosexuality actually was. Certainly, no one I knew admitted to being gay.
While unfortunately many Americans still treat homosexual behavior as immoral, even the most homophobic of us realize that homosexuals are still human beings. Being homosexual has no bearing on intelligence or your capability to perform any kind of work, except possibly in the narrow career of heterosexual sex surrogate. The homosexuals that I know are among the most gifted and creative members of society. If I ran a business, I would not want to limit my talent pool. States that discriminate against homosexuals are essentially giving homosexuals a reason to move to more gay friendly states. If I were a gay person, I would seek to live in states where the laws respected my human dignity. I would avoid states like Virginia, where I live. In Virginia, homosexuals can be legally discriminated against in employment and can be kept away from their spouses at hospitals. Unfortunately, these are not the only Virginia state laws that discriminate against homosexuals.
When I moved to Virginia in 1984, I gave no thought to such laws. I was simply interested in living in Reston, a planned community that I fell in love with. I am settled here and gainfully employed in a job that I will probably stay in until retirement. When my wife and I do retire though, we will feel freer to live anywhere we choose wish. Certainly how comfortable we feel in our community will have a bearing on our choice. Although we are years from retirement, we have already discussed states where we might retire. Off the list is Florida, not just because it is gay unfriendly, but because we hate its climate. However, since we are both tolerant people states like Oregon, which is becoming more and more progressive, is on our list, in spite of its rainy seasons.
The effect of New Hampshire’s decision is not only that gay people have incentive to move to the state. It also means that people like me who, if they have a choice of where to move to, can choose a state based on our values. Through its laws, Virginia is telling gays they do not want them as citizens. Yet even in Virginia, things are changing. Northern Virginia, perhaps because of its proximity to the nation’s capital, is trending toward being both more tolerant and Democratic. For example, in the 2004 elections the county where I live, Fairfax County, was one of a handful of counties whose presidential vote moved from the Republican to the Democratic Party.
Businesses everywhere are discovering that being gay friendly is good for their bottom line. Not only does it give them a richer talent pool to choose from, but catering to the needs of the gay community can be profitable too. You have to wonder, for example, what Walt Disney would think of its gay friendly policies. While he might be upset by the morality of Disney’s 1995 decision to allow health coverage for live in partners of gay and lesbian employees, the other part of him would be glad. The Disney management chain demonstrated that it was serious about ensuring that Disney was attracting the best talent. Disney has also figured out that making homosexuals feel included in the Disney experience was good for its profits too. While laws in Florida and California prohibit gay marriage, both theme parks allow gay couples to schedule commitment ceremonies at their parks. In addition, both parks schedule special days during the year for gays, their friends and their families. Doubtless Disney stockholders have benefited from their progressive approach.
What is true for Disney is doubtless true for most companies. Companies that have a choice of where they will relocate will give New Hampshire a special look. Not only is the state known for a business friendly attitude and low taxes, now it is also offering equal rights for gays and lesbians. Most companies already have gays or lesbians working for them. Having them live in a progressive state like New Hampshire will be seen as a bonus.
As for backwards states like Virginia, give it a decade or two. It may decide that to stay competitive it too needs to loosen its discriminatory laws against gays and lesbians. Otherwise, its economy may be left behind while gay friendly states like New Hampshire’s are likelier to soar.
April 27th, 2007 at 05:27pm
Posted by
Mark |
Politics 2007 |
no comments
Google is one of these amazing companies that demonstrates how uninspiring and mediocre most businesses in the Information Technology (IT) field actually are. Unlike Microsoft, which claims to be innovative but largely is not, Google can truly claim the mantle. Google is a company with the power to inspire awe. Its search engine continues to be the cream of the crop. Yahoo and MSN will keep trying to best Google, but they will likely continue to play follow the leader. Yahoo Maps, for example, just recently released its Beta mapping application, which roughly compares with Google Maps. Google Maps, of course, has been using the magic of AJAX (Asynchronous Javascript and XML) for over a year to take map usability to a completely new level.
For software engineers like me, the speed with which Google churns out amazing new technologies takes my breath away. Its billions of dollars in ready capital certainly explains part of its success. With its passion for excellence and fearlessness taking big chances, Google simply soars high above the rest of the IT crowd. Mostly it hits the bullseye. Google Earth is just the most recent example of a technology that blew my socks off. It is a killer application, as every bit as revolutionary as the first web browser. We were still being wowed with Google Maps ease of use when Google threw us the Google Earth bombshell.
One of the more recent services introduced by Google is Google Video. It provides a new way to find and share video files. Google acts as the Internet’s ubiquitous high speed and fault tolerant video server. Given its enormous infrastructure, hosting and serving these large bandwidth intensive videos must not be much of a problem. The service even lets you know its most popular videos. Yet this is just one of a number of flashy services that Google provides, most at no cost. Let Google host your blog on Blogger. Centralize your email on the network with GMail. Find the lowest price online with Froogle. Search your computer as you would the Internet with Google Desktop Search. (It just happens to be a feature of the Google Desktop, a clever new application, which looks like a first attempt to break up Microsoft’s desktop monopoly.) Google even has pretensions in the Instant Messaging arena with its Talk client. Clearly, their ambition knows few bounds. While it occasionally bites off more than it is ready to chew (GMail being an obvious example) Google’s numbers of home runs outside the ballpark would make even Babe Ruth jealous.
Scott McNealy of Sun Microsystems was I believe the first to promote the idea in the 1990s that “the network is the computer”. While he was ridiculed at the time, Google has shown us that the network can be the computer. With an infrastructure like Google’s, what seemed impossible can unexpectedly become reality. While Microsoft spins its wheels trying to make its Windows product ever niftier, Google shows us that it is what you can do with a computer that makes it meaningful. Indeed, Google makes a compelling case that its services and infrastructure is the ubiquitous application layer of the future, if not the here and now. I am creating this entry using Microsoft Word, but I have already checked a half dozen facts online using Google’s search engine. I can use any word processor to create this entry. I cannot go just anywhere online to find out the information I need this rapidly. Google demonstrates it is not how pretty your screwdriver is that matters, but how well it helps you turn the screw. Therefore, we get its low-tech web pages, always with the pure white background, the simple text and its generous use of white space. It appears low tech but it is simple enough for a student in grade school to use effectively.
So I have plenty of cheers for Google today. I am especially glad it gave the U.S. Justice Department a Bronx cheer when the department recently requested a week’s worth of its web searches. The Justice Department wants the information to discover how the web is being used by pedophiles and those interested in child pornography. Unlike Yahoo and MSN, Google wisely said no. It valued the trust it has earned with its customers too much to let the Justice Department mine its information. Let us hope it continues to do so. Apparently, Google records the Internet Protocol (IP) address of every search query. Let us hope that if push comes to shove Google simply stops recording the IP addresses of all our search queries. For an administration already deeply in Big Brother land with its warrantless electronic eavesdropping, this is simply an opening salvo by the government to get its hands on our private business. If Yahoo and MSN care that little about my privacy, I will not be giving them my business.
In making a stand in America though, Google apparently is quite willing to compromise its principles to win business overseas. For also in the news this week were stories that Google will allow the Chinese government to censor its search engine content. Maybe I was naïve, but I really thought Google got it. However, apparently they will compromise their principles if it improves their shareholders’ bottom line. Perhaps as a result, Google shares went up 3.4 percent with the announcement.
Google must not understand its own unique power at this point in history. Many of us talk about the importance of human freedom, but few are in a position to do much to expand it. Google can. It is the 900-pound gorilla in the information search business. Rather than kowtow to China’s paranoid rulers it should have said no thanks. Yes, perhaps that might have kept Google out of the important Chinese market. Yet a powerful and uncensored internet search engine is a great beacon for those who believe in the power of ideas. The Google business plan surely was premised on its importance. Google is a trusted broker for finding uncensored information. It expands personal freedom and spreads enlightenment. Its reputation is at stake. Which is why Google should rethink doing business with China. Right now, its search engine is the largest force for the liberation of the human mind in the 21st century. Google can be both profitable and spread human enlightenment at the same time. It should tell China it does not need its business unless it guarantees that its citizens have the unfettered access to its search engine.
January 29th, 2006 at 08:47pm
Posted by
Mark |
Politics 2006, Technology |
no comments
