For those who don’t know, it is both custom and law that drivers using the left lane move to the right lane, to allow faster moving cars to pass.  This helps prevent traffic jams and unsafe passing on the part of faster moving drivers who are stuck behind slower moving drivers.  Please, obey the law (and the social norm) of yielding the left lane to faster moving cars.  Doing so not only makes everyone’s drive faster and more pleasant, but it can also prevent car collisions, road rage, and other unpleasantness.  There is simply no excuse for rudely hogging the left lane and preventing others from passing.

A great website that explains this in more detail is SlowerTrafficKeepRight.com

Blackbird’s “Black Friendly” Features
Blackbird includes several features that are supposedly useful to African Americans.  The color scheme is darker, the search tools are modified to provide more results from websites that are geared towards African Americans, and a ticker a the top streams news from African American related news sources.

Blackbird is unneeded
I’m an African American.  I tend to use Firefox for my web browser because I happen to like that browser, although I’m just as comfortable using Safari, Konqueror, Links, Lynx, Chrome, or Internet Explorer.  Never have I been in the middle of using a regular web browser, only to feel that because of the color of my skin, I needed a new browser.  If I wish to visit the NAACP’s website, I can do so using Firefox.  If I wish to see BET’s news, I can subscribe to their RSS feed.  If I want to read the news, I’m perfectly capable of doing so from any ordinary news source – I don’t need a “Black” version of the news.

Blackbird is offenseive
The type of racism I’ve found to be most offensive in my life is not the type I experience when a racist cop pulls me over and treats me like a gang member, rather than someone who will (soon) be an Attorney at Law, and who holds a B.S. in Computer Science degree as well.  Nor is the casual racism I’ve experienced for uneducated idiots the most offensive type.  Instead, I’ve found the most offensive type of racism to be the kind that I experience from people who believe that the color of my skin means that I am a lesser member of society.  And that is exactly what Blackbird does.

“Black people use that word all the time so its OK for white people to do so too.”

This justification rests on the premise that the ignorance and stupidity of some of my fellow African Americans should be imputed on to me. That is a plainly ridiculous suggestion. I have no control over what words some other black people choose to use, nor am I responsible for their poor choice of words. When I hear such such poor word choice, I try my best to correct it.
For example, I’m sure that I could find some Jewish person who finds concentration camp jokes to be funny, or some Polish person who finds racism directed towards Polish people to be funny – but that obviously doesn’t mean that all Jews or Poles would find such racism to be entertaining, or that finding such people would give me a license to make racist remarks.

“He didn’t mean anything by it… he says that word all the time.”

When I first heard this justification, I thought it was a joke. The fact that one makes racist remarks all the time is further evidence of deep seated racism – not proof that one is not a racist.

“He is just a Southerner, it’s all he knows.”

This justification is also devoid of any merit. So because someone grew up in the Southern part of the United States they can be as racist as they wish? I don’t think so. First, I know many people from the South who are non-racist, morally upstanding, all around great people. Many of my family members live in Florida and neighboring states. The suggestion that Southerners are all a bunch of racists is insulting to the good people I know from that part of the country. Also, were we to just grant a pass to racist Southerners, then the situation would never change, as each subsequent generation would have racist values instilled by their racist parents. I don’t care where someone grew up – this is 2008 and racism is just not tolerable these days.

“Oh don’t pay any attention to him when he is drunk. He doesn’t mean it.”

Again, I disagree. Being drunk does not plant racism in the mind of a decent person. Instead, alcohol just lowers inhibitions, causing people to say what they might otherwise have kept to themselves. Blaming his drunken state is no excuse, any more than voluntary intoxication is an excuse for wife beaters or drunk drivers.

“It is his free speech right to say racist things anyway.”

I am a huge supporter of free speech, however free speech is not the issue here. The First Amendment protects the right to free speech from Governmental interference. This means that Federal, State, and Local government cannot (generally) punish or silence speech, including racist speech. [Threats, yelling fire in a crowded theater, etc are a different story, of course.] Free speech protection does not apply to individual social interactions. If a person makes a racist remark in my home, I have every right to expel them. If I’m in the home of a person who makes a racist remark, I’m free to leave. If I have an employee who makes racist remarks, I can fire them. If I have a friend who makes racist remarks, our friendship can come to an end. Free speech rights only deal with the Government, and are (generally) inapplicable when dealing with private parties.

“That word doesn’t apply to you – you’re such a well spoken and educated black person”

Yes, I am a well educated African American who has a firm command of the English language. But that doesn’t mean that I don’t take offense to racism. I’ve been harrased by the police numers times while going about my peaceful and lawful business, because a racist cop saw a large black guy, rather than a law student or computer programmer or scuba diver or wannabe light aircraft pilot. Indeed, my first memory of the police was when they wrongfully detained my mother, father, and I when a store clerk falsely accused us of shoplifting. I dealt with racism in a school where I was one of about five black children. Even nowadays, I’ve had people cross the street to avoid me when it is dark outside, even when I’m wearing a suit and carrying a backpack filled with my lawschool books. I’ve know other African Americans who have suffered great physical harm at the hands of a racist. I also know that my (future) children will face racism.

Above all else, I would like to point out that the real problem was not the racism of some drunk slob. It is the way that other people chose to tolerate his racism and even attempt to justify and explain it away. As it has been said, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

There are a variety of companies that offer an anti spam verification system.  Basically, when a person emails a recipient for the first time, their email is prevented from reaching the recipient’s inbox.  The sender is sent an automated email, instructing them to click a link and complete a captcha (those anti spam image verification tests).  Then, and only then, will their email be delivered to the recipient.  If they fail to complete these verification steps, then the email won’t be delivered.  While I applaud the idea of fighting spam, I see this particular approach as a bad idea for the following reasons:

1. It tells those sending email to you that your time is more valuable than their time
Forcing the senders of legitimate email to complete a captcha tells them that you would rather have them jump through hoops than to deal with spam yourself.  It sends the wrong message to clients, and can be insulting to colleagues.  We don’t make clients and colleagues solve a puzzle before they enter our offices or call us on the phone, and email should be no different.

2. It can block important emails
Some people’s spam filters will end up blocking the verification emails, causing the original message to be lost in limbo.  Other times, a person will send an email before boarding a plane or otherwise losing internet access, causing a time critical email to be delayed for hours or longer.  Other people may send email from devices that lack unrestricted web access, preventing verification even if they receive the automated verification email.

3. It is unnecessary
I have email set up on about a dozen domain names of mine, including catch-all addresses (so any email to any address at the domain name reaches my inbox).  I also have my old gmail and student email accounts forwarded.  My various email addresses appear on many websites… Yet only about 2 pieces of spam make it past my spam filters every day, and I very rarely have a legitimate email caught by the spam filters.  Normal spam filters work well enough, and don’t burden those who email me by making them jump through captcha hoops.

Many pundits, politicians, or ordinary citizens seem to think that the best way to get their point across is to drown our their opponent with loud and inflammatory remarks.  The seemingly short attention span of many Americans, and the constraints imposed by TV based news, may have something to do with the success of this tactic.  I, however, think we would do better to focus on the issues and conduct ourselves like civilized people.

Personal attacks, yelling, and hyperbole make it harder to persuade the opposing side.  That is because making the issue more personal causes people to become emotionally invested in the defense of their viewpoint.  They are then unable to concede the point or even compromise, since to do so would cause them a loss of face. I’ve found a better aproach is to argue the facts in a respectful manner.  Indeed, I canot think of a single situation where I’ve seen yelling or personal attacks prove successful.

That is to say that there are legitimate interests on both sides of almost every such issue, and to reach a reach a reasonable outcome, these issues must be balanced against each other.  Usually, there is not a clear set of “good guys” and “bad guys.” Sadly, it is often the case that overly zealous advocates on each side of the issue act as though their side is the only reasonable one, ignoring the need to balance each side’s interest against the others. Perhaps a couple quick examples will illustrate the point:

Abortion Rights are a Balancing Test
On the abortion rights side are the privacy and self determination rights of the woman who wants to have the option of having an abortion. On the anti abortion rights side there is the interest of the people who feel that a fetus is a life, and should be protected. I reach the conclusion that abortion should be allowed, because I believe the privacy and self determination interests of the woman trump the interests of the anti abortion side of the argument.

Firearms Rights are a Balancing Test
On the firearms rights side are the interests of law abiding citizens who wish to own firearms for self defense or sporting purpose. On the anti firearms rights side are the interests of people who feel that banning firearms will prevent criminals from having them, and using them to commit crimes. I reach the conclusion that firearm ownership should be allowed, because I believe the interest in self defense and other lawful firearm ownership purpose outweighs the virtually non-existent connection between gun control and crime reduction.