I’ve been following the Xbox One press very closely over the last two days. Why would an Apple guy care about the Xbox One? Honestly, it’s because gaming on the Mac doesn’t compete with the console. I’ve never been a fan of the PlayStation controller, so I’ve been a die-hard Xbox guy since the first Xbox hit my doorstep in 2001. I’m not going to get into which console is better or why I don’t game on the Mac; I’m just going to cover the current state of turmoil in the console gaming business.

We haven’t seen the new PlayStation, but we have heard enough about it to get an idea of its features. We have seen the new Xbox One; the Wii U is on the market now. None of these consoles blows away the competition. The PlayStation 4 looks to be the only console that comes close to gamer wishes. Hardware, software or backwards compatibility – all of them compromise the true purpose of a console: a great gaming experience.

Microsoft and Sony are spending too much time trying to win the home entertainment industry with one box. Nintendo’s off living in its own little world trying to convince the rest of us that the Wii U is cool. If any of these companies actually spent time working on the gaming aspect of their new consoles, they would surely pull ahead of the pack. The gaming experience should be the most important aspect of any console.

If Microsoft’s Xbox One had a live streaming TV service, if it were backwards compatible with Xbox 360 games, if I could play used games without paying an extra fee – it might be cool. Unfortunately, Microsoft built a console with too many ‘gotchas’ for some gamers… and it’s only the day after the reveal. I hope that Microsoft has some great news for us about the Xbox 360 at E3. Since it’s not being retired, maybe they’ll upgrade the hardware and make it the best gaming console on the market… without all of the bloat of the Xbox One.

Microsoft is trying to cram two very different markets into the Xbox One. While some of the entertainment features seem cool, most of them look like smoke and mirrors at this point. I think it’s safe to say that none of them solve a problem… or even enhance our living room experience. I don’t think Microsoft put enough effort into the entertainment side of the Xbox One to really sell the user on the concept. I still need a cable box to play TV through an Xbox One. It’s possible that Microsoft couldn’t sell the networks on a TV streaming deal… but did they even try? Did they think that a TV pass through was good enough? I would’ve settled for CableCARD integration; that would at least get rid of an extra box in my entertainment center.

Microsoft didn’t get the magic right with the Xbox One; Nintendo is off on it’s own with the Wii U; and Sony hasn’t shown us much of the new PlayStation 4. It’s impossible to really grasp what the living room will look like this Christmas… but I’m not very thrilled. That’s why this summer could prove very good for the consumer.

Xbox One Shadowed by Valve and Apple?

Assuming console gaming and living room entertainment remain two detached industries, I think we could see a huge step forward this summer. The two names giving us innovation: Valve and Apple. Valve will reveal the Steam Box, and people expect Apple to enhance living room entertainment. I don’t think Apple has enough of the game developer industry using their ecosystem to make an all-in-one living room box, but I’m sure some people would call me stupid for thinking that. Either way, here’s my take.

Starting with Valve, we don’t know much about the Steam Box, but it will have access to the entire Steam Game Catalog on your choice of the Linux or Windows OS. We haven’t seen the hardware but we have seen a good preview of the software through Big Picture Mode. We also know that it will include biometric monitoring and multi-screen gameplay. It sounds great to me. Bundle that with Half-Life 3, and I’ll buy it on launch day. With Gabe Newell at the helm, I have high hopes for the Steam Box.

Moving over to Apple, I hope that we may see something truly great from them this year. With Jony Ive taking over UI design from Scott Forstall, we could end up with software that looks as great as the hardware that runs it. While Apple has made the Apple TV a hobby, the living room market is ripe for new tech. The 2011 book Steve Jobs stated that Steve, himself, “… finally cracked it.” Given the standard incubation period of Apple tech, 2013 is the first we could see a new entertainment system come to life. With the pending iOS 7 reveal and Mac OS 10.9 showing up in server logs, Apple is extremely busy. I hope they gave each product the right level of attention.

Unlike Microsoft, I don’t think that Apple has any plans to work with your cable box or to include a CableCARD for direct TV tuning. I think that Apple will use its weight in the market to push the TV, movie, and music industries into a new model that will change the living room, as we know it. Watch live TV, streamed directly to your Apple TV. Download old episodes on demand. Listen to an infinite catalog of music by paying a monthly fee. Watch movies on the release date by paying movie theater prices. Drop the 30-day limbo for movie rentals. Don’t overlook apps: a true SDK for the Apple TV would allow developers to port anything available for iOS to your TV. Granted, Apple would need to redefine content interaction because we can’t do all of that with the Apple Remote.

I don’t think any of these ideas are too much to ask from Valve or Apple. If anyone has the power to disrupt the gaming industry, it’s Valve. If anyone has the power to disrupt the entertainment industry, it’s Apple. With the lackluster reception of the Xbox One, now is the perfect time to do it. Let’s hope that both companies can deliver stellar products and make our lives a little better.

The post Xbox One Leaves the Door Open for Innovation appeared first on voice.

Lately, I’ve seen too many Facebook New Friend Reports in my news feed and it made me use the site and mobile app less, so I set out to find an answer. If you’ve found this post, it’s probably making you crazy as well. No, you can’t just turn off all of these notifications — you have to convince all of your friends to do it for you. Great, right? We have the awesome minds at Facebook to thank for that one.

Turning off Facebook New Friend Reports

Unfortunately, as of this writing, Facebook does not have a way to do this from the mobile app; you must sign into the website to stop spamming your friends with Facebook New Friend Reports. If you’re tired of seeing blank “is now friends with” blank, then share this with your friends and follow the instructions below:

1. Log into Facebook from your computer
2. Go to your profile page and click the “Activity Log” button (near your cover photo)
3. In the left sidebar, choose the “Friends” section (you may need to click the “MORE” link to see it)
4. At the top right of the friends section, you’ll see a box — click it.
5. In that popup, uncheck the “New Friend Reports” checkbox.
6. Your friends will thank you profusely.

Use the image below as a guide to turning off the New Friend Reports. It’s certainly possible that the steps to turn this off will change in the future, but this should help as a visual representation.

If you have any questions, or think that the steps to turn this “feature” off changed with time, please comment below and we’ll try to help. I hope that this makes your news feed a little less cluttered as more people find this post and turn off the spam. Please share this will all of your friends so we can stop blank “is now friends with” blank.

If you want to tell Facebook that you don’t like all of the extra work to turn this off, please let them know through the news feed suggestions form.

The post Facebook New Friend Reports – Hide “is now friends with” spam appeared first on voice.

A childhood friend of mine, Ben Parr, has gone on to do great things in the tech industry and gained a popular tech following that would put most writers/investors to shame. He and I competed for the smart kid status in elementary school (he won most of the time). While he’s writing for c|net and investing in startups, I’m having fun in Denver writing, building websites and running an Apple repair company. We both took completely different directions in life.

While I normally agree with his tech-related opinions, I have to disagree with his perspective on the future of RSS — Really Simple Syndication, sometimes labeled Rich Site Summary. He believes that Google’s decision to shut down the Google Reader service on July 1, 2013, is the first major step to the demise of RSS. Ben argues that tools like Twitter and Facebook are more efficient for most people.

I actually think Twitter is a more effective way to consume content in a world that produced 1.93 trillion gigabytes of data in 2011 and is expected to hit 7.9 trillion gigabytes in 2015. RSS readers work when trying to consume 20 to 30 blogs, but try sticking 300 in Google Reader and you’ll cry yourself to sleep.

That’s a fair point… but a little bit of organization will prevent an emotional breakdown. Google Reader allows you to put different RSS subscriptions into folders. Any good RSS app will allow you to just look at the unread or favorite articles from specific folders and sources. I typically follow about 10-15 blogs for all of my tech-related news. They’re all in my tech folder. I clear that out once a week (usually Friday) so we have content for our weekly updates on YouTube. Following 300 blogs, as Ben suggests, seems unrealistic to me: even my 10-15 tech blogs repeat a lot of the same information repeatedly. If you’re in the market of breaking news instead of adding perspective, 300 blogs may be necessary… prioritizing sources is easy. My non-tech folders do get a little neglected, but I still love reading through those feeds when I’m bored. However, it’s occasionally necessary to declare RSS feed bankruptcy and mark everything as read.

Twitter and Facebook can replicate part of that functionality, but it certainly isn’t more effective for my workflow. First, I keep Facebook to my personal relationships… I don’t want news showing up in my feed unless one of my friends shared it. I use Twitter on a professional level connecting to other tech writers on my main account, friends on another. I could set up another account as my news feed… but there’s a problem with Twitter that doesn’t exist with RSS. Twitter only allows 140 characters, so most of the news tweets include a link to the article and the title; that’s far from the “Rich Site Summary” definition. News titles are often misleading and stupid just to get you to read the article. With RSS, most articles include an excerpt or the whole body of text; that allows me to infer more about the article without wasting my time clicking links. That reason alone is enough for me to keep using RSS for news consumption.

Between sync issues and a complete shunning of third-party apps, Twitter isn’t a good choice for me. I use Tweetbot by Tapbots (iOS App Store | Mac App Store) and love it — Twitter’s self-developed offerings are terrible — but sync is my biggest problem with Twitter. As of right now, moving from iPhone to iPad to Mac creates major problems for my Twitter feed. There are 248 unread tweets on my iPhone (correct), 2 days of unread tweets on my iPad (nope), and 4 days of unread tweets on my Mac. I’ve tried Tweet Marker and iCloud sync within the Tweetbot, and neither of them works properly 100% of the time. I do not blame Tweetbot; I blame Twitter for not having APIs that allow third-party developers to synchronize unread tweets. Sync through external services creates unnecessary complexity. Google Reader is an RSS synchronization service that Google built for a better news consumption experience that works beautifully between apps and devices. Twitter doesn’t come close to replicating that functionality.

A great multi-device app that integrates with Google Reader’s sync functionality is truly the best way to consume news. No matter what I’m using — iPhone, iPad, or Mac — I can take a minute and read news via RSS. I’ve been using Reeder (iPhone | iPad | Mac App Store) for months and wouldn’t choose to use anything else unless it no longer works. Even after this news blew up yesterday, Reeder tweeted (ironically) that they will continue to exist after Google Reader dies. They’ll most likely transition to a different sync service for their app; maybe even build their own sync framework. As long as it continues to function well, I’ll keep using it.

As for the general assumption that RSS is dying: I’d love to see a widespread adoption of something better, but Twitter isn’t the right choice. Podcasts are huge right now, and they rely on RSS exclusively. Twitter cannot and certainly will not fill that gap. Many services rely on RSS for additional functionality, so I don’t see RSS going anywhere any time soon.

Does the average Internet user know how to use RSS? No, they’ll stick with Twitter, Facebook, or Google+ (Do people actually use that?). Journalists, bloggers, and other Internet power users will certainly continue to use this niche technology in their daily routines. There are many examples of power users paying a heft cost to do more with digital data. The title is an Aristotelian format analogy that shows the difference between Joe Schmoe and a power user.

Twitter : RSS :: MS Paint : Adobe Illustrator

Let’s hope that using RSS stays free and doesn’t go the way of Adobe. I’d really hate to rely on Twitter for news.

The post Twitter : RSS :: MS Paint : Adobe Illustrator appeared first on voice.

What was Pepsi thinking? Well, they want to attack the energy drink market that consumers (like myself) use to stay awake… or wake up in the morning. They consider Mountain Dew Kickstart a healthier choice than your typical energy drinks — Rockstar, Amp, Monster, or Red Bull — and hoped that it would prove more popular for its differences.

Mountain Dew Kickstart is not an energy drink in the general sense… it’s more of a morning booster shot. Most energy drink companies load their products with sugar, vitamins, taurine, ginseng, and other words I cannot pronounce. Kickstart includes only 20 grams of sugar, a high level of caffeine, 5% real fruit juice, vitamin c and b. The biggest difference between Kickstart and other 16oz energy drinks is the serving size: one serving of Kickstart is the whole can. Other 16oz energy drinks have two servings in the one can.

The 92 mg of caffeine in the Mountain Dew Kickstart is lackluster compared to the 240 mg of caffeine in a Rockstar. Caffeine isn’t the only ingredient that matters in an energy drink, but Kickstart has less caffeine than a single cup of coffee… that is not promising. Most energy drinks include vitamins, so I’m struggling to find what niche Kickstart will fill in the energy market. Its only claim to fame is a low level of sugar — 20 grams versus 66 grams in a 16oz Rockstar — but a sugar free Rockstar has no sugar, plenty of vitamins and will certainly jump start your day with higher dose of awesome.

We’ve bashed Mountain Dew Kickstart and its ability to wake you up, but how does it taste? Simply: not great. There are currently two flavors: orange citrus and fruit punch. I compare them to diet versions of Mountain Dew Live Wire (limited flavor) and Mountain Dew Code Red. Neither flavor tastes great… most sugar free drinks have more flavor.

It seems like Pepsi missed the point with this drink. Yes, a healthier alternative for morning energy is certainly welcome… but I don’t think Mountain Dew Kickstart understands what that looks like. If you like diet soda in the morning, then Kickstart may work for you. I’ll stick to the sugar free options available from other brands like Rockstar and NOS — they taste much better than Kickstart.

The post New breakfast drink – Mountain Dew Kickstart appeared first on voice.

A good friend of eciov — Sean Caspian — wrote a quick review of the recent Tomb Raider 2013 release. In short, the absolutely stunning gameplay and unique mechanics make it a completely new experience for the gamers of world.

He and I both love it.

Since he took the time to write up his initial thoughts, I’ll link to him and spare you the similarities. However, I will have a full write-up once I have enough time to finish the game. I’m only five hours in and haven’t seen a game this good in a very long time. If you are on the fence about the sometimes-waning adventures of Lara Croft, go ahead and wait for my write-up. Even with the limited game time, I can certainly recommend the game without hesitation.

The post Tomb Raider 2013 thoughts from Sean Caspian appeared first on voice.

I had a friend ask me recently if I had any advice for dating a nonbeliever. (I’m going to focus on a secular view of dating for this article, so don’t run away if you’re not a Christian.) There are many factors that affect Christian dating, but I have a one-word response to dating a nonbeliever: don’t. I’m not just saying that because I think it’s a bad idea, I’m saying that because scripture says it’s a bad idea. I do agree, however, that it’s a bad idea. Instead of trying to address everything in one article, I’m splitting it up into parts. This article specifically addresses the ideal progression through the four stages of a romantic relationship. It really doesn’t matter if you’re Christian or agnostic, male or female — this article is a general guide to creating a healthy romance. It’s how I landed my wife and anyone who’s met us will tell you that she’s too good for me (yep).

Let’s start with the concept of friendship versus courting versus dating versus marriage. Those are four completely separate stages of a romantic relationship. You shouldn’t take them lightly; take them to heart and you’ll create healthy relationships by following that order. Can you skip a stage? Yes, people do it all the time. Should you skip a stage? Nope.

I define relationships this way because I don’t see the point in dating someone unless you think they’re marriage material. If you don’t want to marry someone but you’re still dating that person, you’re probably just using the relationship for your own physical pleasure. That’s shallow. I hope that this post will help you understand why I split relationships into those four stages and help you get to the next step when you’re ready. Some people aren’t ready yet: they want the emotionally empty, physical relationships (I was there once), but that’s not how you should date, marry, or be awesome. You get to be awesome and have awesome relationships by following these four stages, so I’m going break them down and illustrate the recommended process for each.

Friendship

The friendship stage is actually the most important stage because it’s when you get to know the other person. Let’s say you meet someone at your best friend’s birthday party. You’re attracted to them physically, but you didn’t have enough time to get to know them. Instead of asking your friend to set you up on a date, ask your friend to setup another social gathering with fewer people (suggestion: a game of ultimate Frisbee at the park) so you can get some more one-on-one time with your crush. Hang out with this person and see how things evolve. At this stage, it’s easy to determine if personalities mesh well. If not, no harm done… you still had fun with your friends. Assuming things progress in the right direction, suggest another social event, and make sure your crush will be there.

While this is happening, take a third-party perspective and see if your crush seems interested in you. It’s possible that you’re drooling over someone who has no immediate fascination with you. Don’t let that discourage you. I know plenty of people who had to prove their intentions before the crush considered them romantic material. In fact, that’s generally awesome. It shows a level of confidence and self-respect that is rare.

At the third gathering (suggestion: trip to a museum), make sure that you position yourself with enough time to talk with your crush on a more intimate level. Your friends should know that you’re crushing on this person so you don’t end up being the third wheel of someone else’s conversation. Assuming you’ve found ways to connect intellectually and everything feels like sunshine and unicorns — now is the perfect time to suggest a one-on-one activity. Make sure that they know it’s not a date — even explain courtship if necessary — and declare your intentions. Your crush should know that you are romantically interested and that you would like the opportunity to prove your worth. Ask for a phone number but don’t set up the next interaction just yet… leaving time for them to process everything is crucial to make sure they don’t feel smothered.

Courting

You’re now officially moving on to the courting stage. What is courting? It’s like dating without any “special privileges.” Your crush should know that you have romantic intentions but that there isn’t any need to move into a committed or physical relationship at this point. You’ll be surprised how much anxiety this takes out of the relationship. Give your crush a call and set up the next outing (suggestion: hiking). Don’t be in a hurry to get off the phone! Encourage conversation: ask how their day went, bring up funny moments from your previous interactions, offer them compliments, and encourage them frequently. Some people don’t like talking on the phone; I don’t suggest gauging the success of the relationship on this one conversation… but it’s okay to hope for awesomeness.

You should focus everything you do during the courting stage on establishing rapport (a relationship of mutual trust). Discuss everything they are willing to share with you — history, family, friends, enemies, challenges, successes, etc. Conversation is your best friend as you make your decision to move forward to the dating stage or end the relationship. Even if the relationship loses its romantic focus, you will probably gain a good friend from the experience. It may seem early, but the real goal here is to determine marriage eligibility. There is absolutely no point in dating unless you see enough good qualities in your crush that align with what you’re looking for in a spouse.

A common misconception — it’s really a conscious decision for most people — is that the courting stage should be short. In fact, I suggest that you make this the longest stage of the romantic process. I hear many reasons to shorten this stage: “It’s annoying that I can’t call you my girlfriend/boyfriend,” “I want to move onto the good (physical) stuff,” or “I know them well enough.” None of those is reason enough to advance to the dating stage. Call them your girlfriend/boyfriend if you need to: it can be difficult to explain the relationship to your friends and family if they don’t understand this whole concept. Gaining the physical privileges of dating is purely unnecessary to your romantic relationship: your goal is to get to know them; you’ll have plenty of time for make out sessions later. It’s impossible to know everything about anyone: they only tell you what they want you to know and you will only ask what you care about most. Admittedly, I only lasted about a month in the courtship stage. My wife and I talked for several hours every day, so we knew each other pretty well. The thought of kissing her was also a factor.

Dating

You’ve decided to move from the courting stage to the dating stage. This stage exists to solidify and test your relationship. Things you didn’t discuss in the courting stage come into the open and can sometimes cause problems. Literally, talk about everything you think could cause conflict. You should spend a lot of time with family and friends during this stage so there aren’t any surprises later down the road. If any issues arise, don’t give up, work through them. The ability to handle conflict and stress is crucial to the success of any relationship. There are certainly deal breakers in any relationship, but those should’ve shown up in the courting stage. If you’ve really focused on the courting stage, the dating stage ends up being short; the next section explains that.

Now for everyone’s favorite part… physicality. I have three simple words for this topic: don’t be stupid. We all know what is right and wrong with the physically romantic areas of a relationship. Your morals define that for you. Religious people tend to set a stricter limit on physicality but I always suggest taking things slow, regardless of religion. At this point, you’ve been holding off for a while… why rush anything? Practicing self-control is certainly difficult; giving in to temptation is easy. I certainly can’t tell your hormones what to do. Sex is not something I will address here; it’s a topic for a completely different series. Just remember those three words: don’t be stupid.

Marriage

You like making out, you are intellectually compatible, everything about your crush makes you happy — you should probably pop the question. I lump the engagement stage of a relationship with the marriage stage on purpose. If you followed through with the other three stages and decided to advance to this final stage, the connection you’ve established with your crush should make the engagement extremely easy and very similar to married life. Since I want to keep this part of the guide secular, the whole point of the previous three stages were to decide marriage potential. Once engaged, there isn’t any emotional difference between that and marriage. Moving in together and sex are probably the only parts of married life that I, religiously, don’t recommend during the engagement. Engaged couples tend to do one or both of those things… but I think it adds so much more to a relationship if you can hold out.

That leads to the walk down the aisle and the honeymoon. Both are awesome. I won’t get into tips for a happy marriage in this article; I could write an entire book full of them. If you follow these four stages and are true to yourself throughout, you’re going to have an awesome marriage and don’t need any tips. I will say, however, that you probably shouldn’t compete in a couple’s trivia contest on your honeymoon — it only causes trouble.

The post How to Date, Marry and Be Awesome – Part One appeared first on voice.

I would like to pose a simple question for debate that has no roots in the Democratic or Republican Party, as I claim no affiliation. I consider myself an educated voter that simply examines the issues, chooses the right path, and votes accordingly. In the coming months, I will redefine my political affiliation by sharing my ideal vision: a new voice for the political world. As I work towards that, I will ask challenging questions to gauge the receptiveness of the population to various political issues. Here is the first one:

Would our nation be more sustainable if we split into two separate countries?

I ask this question not because I want to start a war, cause problems or even hope that it comes true. I want to know if such change is possible and what it would look like. Would one nation be Republican, the other Democrat, or would we end up with a completely new political system that we have yet to explore? How would the two (or more) nations divide the current debt? Would one side end up with all of the rich, the other the poor? Would the education systems be different?

If it were possible to create two separate nations that provide obvious solutions to the political rift, would you support it?

Now that you know my initial questions, I would love to hear yours. This is bound to create conflict and I reserve the right to moderate all comments, edit, or delete them as necessary to maintain a positive direction for the conversation. In the next paragraphs, I will explain where all of these questions originated and why I am not convinced that a shift in our political system could even fix the larger problems our nation faces.

I, unfortunately, am consistently the victim of my acquaintances’ ignorant views on both sides of the political spectrum. People I grew up with spew their political bias all over Facebook and Twitter with blatant disregard to how it affects the people who read it. In all honesty, I have muted most of these people because they actually destroy the community I want from my social interactions. If you came here from Facebook or Twitter, it is even possible that I have muted you.

I mute anyone I find offensive on Facebook and Twitter, but here are the typical personalities I will not tolerate. Raging atheists, who see no reason for God, mock those who believe and blame Christianity, guns, and the 1% for their troubles. I also turn off anyone who shoves their judgmental faith down my throat, bashes homosexuals, and says that Obama is a Muslim determined to take away their freedom. I started using a phrase a while ago that expresses the pain these people cause my brain: “The stupid burns.” I found it difficult to believe that educated people could associate themselves with either end of that spectrum. I genuinely hoped that this stupidity was correctable with logic and reasoning. After many attempts, I found that these people either do not have the intelligence to entertain reason or simply enjoy basking in their own ignorance.

One of the common themes I saw before another round of muting acquaintances was their desire to secede from the United States after Obama won the 2012 election. Ironically, these requests only came from people in southern states. Not long after the election, their peers petitioned the White House to allow their state secession. Florida, Louisiana, Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas all successfully petitioned a response from the White House. Instead of supporting their call for secession, the administration’s response encouraged unity and participation in government.

While that was certainly the politically correct response, why deny them the opportunity? “Sure, go ahead and try to work it out.” I doubt it would get very far… and if it did, there would be many people against it. If it actually happened, we would probably see some people migrate north and others head south. It would create a moral and geographical division of extremists while leaving the moderates to choose the lesser of two evils based on the newly modified/formed governments.

Would that be so bad? I honestly could not be more disgusted with our current political system and I doubt very much that it will correct itself any time soon. Extremists increase polarity in our nation’s politics every day. That could very well lead to a bitter end for the United States, as we know it. It is painfully obvious that the current members of congress would rather encourage our nation’s demise than reach a compromise to help our struggling economy. We, the people, will certainly feel the effect of their irresponsibility for years to come.

A house divided against itself cannot stand.

Lincoln’s statement still holds true. This government’s inability to compromise will tear our nation apart. Instead of slowly destroying everything, could splitting our nation in two actually increase the chance of its peoples’ survival?

The post In Order to Break a Less Perfect Union appeared first on voice.

These are heavy topics for me… heavy for most of the people who end up reading this. I’m constantly watching current events so I can write something that challenges all of us. This one hurts: not because these apply to me directly, because they apply to all of us indirectly. None of you can say that you’ve never encountered depression, bullying or suicide at any point in your life. I’d wager that most of you have experience with at least two of those, maybe even at the same time. Unfortunately, this post talks about all three because of a single victim, pushed too far.

Aaron Swartz was a 26-year-old internet genius that did more for your online freedoms that you will ever know. He obtained a high level of fame at 14 when he helped define the RSS (really simple syndicate) specification still used by millions of websites worldwide. Since that time, he helped build the massive dumping ground of opinions called Reddit, worked on the development of the Creative Commons copyright licenses, and founded DemandProgress.org. I will never do his work justice, so here’s an excerpt from his family’s official statement:

Aaron’s commitment to social justice was profound, and defined his life. He was instrumental to the defeat of an Internet censorship bill; he fought for a more democratic, open, and accountable political system; and he helped to create, build, and preserve a dizzying range of scholarly projects that extended the scope and accessibility of human knowledge. He used his prodigious skills as a programmer and technologist not to enrich himself but to make the Internet and the world a fairer, better place. His deeply humane writing touched minds and hearts across generations and continents. He earned the friendship of thousands and the respect and support of millions more.

It’s hard for me to comprehend the situation: someone younger than me, more accomplished than me has gone before me because of an ongoing battle with depression and a bullying government that overstepped ethical boundaries. His never-ending lust for free information got him into trouble with the federal government more than once. He was most recently under investigation for stealing journal articles from MIT, whose desire to continue litigation became less clear over time. To our government, that didn’t matter.

Aaron had come under fire previously by working to make US law history free to everyone. A program called PACER allows people to pay for access, but Aaron helped create a program called RECAP that hosted much of the purchased information for free. He and many other activists used countless amounts of time and money to free a large percentage of that data from the government’s pay wall. Even though big brother never brought him down, they smeared his name and constantly harassed him… they just wouldn’t let up. Most of the speculation surrounding his suicide points to a government that bullies those who fight for free information.

Even though MIT backed away — they didn’t clarify their position well — the prosecution kept prodding, bullying Aaron until the very end. His only real crime was a love of free information, but he made many enemies along the way… and they kept pushing until it looked like he would spend years in jail. Lessig summarizes this problem best here:

In that world, the question this government needs to answer is why it was so necessary that Aaron Swartz be labeled a “felon.” For in the 18 months of negotiations, that was what he was not willing to accept, and so that was the reason he was facing a million dollar trial in April — his wealth bled dry, yet unable to appeal openly to us for the financial help he needed to fund his defense, at least without risking the ire of a district court judge. And so as wrong and misguided and fucking sad as this is, I get how the prospect of this fight, defenseless, made it make sense to this brilliant but troubled boy to end it.

Cory Doctorow, a friend of Aaron’s, wrote this post over at Boing Boing. In it, he expressed the simplest question that will haunt him forever: did Aaron even know that his friends would drop everything and help him in a time of need? Instead of telling someone of our love, we assume they feel it. We can’t assume such things! At some point, they’ll need help and they won’t call us.

Because whatever problems Aaron was facing, killing himself didn’t solve them. Whatever problems Aaron was facing, they will go unsolved forever. If he was lonely, he will never again be embraced by his friends. If he was despairing of the fight, he will never again rally his comrades with brilliant strategies and leadership. If he was sorrowing, he will never again be lifted from it.

Such a brilliant mind would surely be aware of his options, right? That’s almost certain… but such a brilliant mind is also painfully conscious to the burdens any request for help lays upon friends. Aaron already shared much good with the world, but a mind so riddled by depression would easily choose the ultimate sacrifice over the burdening of friends. Most of us who’ve been hurt by suicide feel a sense of anger, that the person was selfish in some way, but depression amplifies negativity and isolation. Eventually, martyrdom begins to look like rainbows and roses.

Depression, bullying, and suicide — unfortunately, Aaron’s story encounters all three topics. I didn’t know him personally, but I know his work and greatly appreciate everything he’s done for our freedoms. There is a lot of work left that he couldn’t finish, so spend some time look into his projects and see if your talents fall in line with any areas of need. I will miss him, all of us will.

I started this series with Aaron’s story because it hits home for me. I’ll be writing about each topic separately in the weeks to come. I have a lot to say, but I wanted to respect Aaron without my beliefs riddled throughout.

RIP, Aaron Swartz.

The post Depression, Bullying, and Suicide appeared first on voice.

We received an email a few days ago from Dave Britton at McDonald Hyundai (Littleton, CO) saying that they wanted to sell my Sonata to a customer who couldn’t afford a new car. While I never saw it in writing, he specifically mentioned that we could continue the terms of our current lease in a newer Sonata. That sounded cool, so I took the bait, and visited the dealer to check out our options.

Finding a mommy car

While talking to Dave, I mentioned that we were interested in moving to a mommy car so that we could be ready for kids whenever that happens (don’t get too excited, Mom). I realize now that he ran with this topic — we never discussed the Sonata — because he hoped to take advantage of a young, inexperienced car buyer. Unfortunately for him… I’m anything but that.

We talked for a while, and I mentioned that I didn’t think Hyundai had anything in their inventory that would really fit my mommy car requirements. Obviously, safety is number one, but there are many things to consider in a good mommy car:

• All-wheel drive — Laura hates driving in the snow.
• Good crash ratings — every dealer says that they’re best in class but I recommend checking out the IIHS ratings.
• Leather seats — tell me that cleaning up after a kid is easy with cloth seats… nope.
• Handling — a good way to check this is by looking up the skidpad g rating for the car; the higher the better.
• Gas mileage — ideally, I was looking to keep the average MPG close to my Sonata’s 29 (my personal average).
• Space — Laura and I both are concerned about space: she wants it for carting around mommy stuff; I want friends to be comfortable in the back seat.

To me, everything else is gravy. I never expected to find a vehicle (car, SUV, crossover, wagon, etc.) that maximizes all of those requirements. I definitely didn’t think that Hyundai had it. That magical blend of awesomeness does exist, but it’s not a Hyundai.

Testing out the Tucson

Dave suggested the Hyundai Tucson. He explained that it had all-wheel drive as an option, good crash ratings, good handling, good gas mileage and plenty of space. After looking into it, I agreed with him on everything but the gas mileage.

I highly recommend the government’s fuel economy website to get the latest and most accurate MPG available for any car. After doing a bit of research, I found that the Hyundai Tucson didn’t even come close to the Hyundai Sonata in average MPG — no surprise. Even still, I took the Tucson for a spin and felt like it would be a good mommy car. I even had Laura come over to the dealership to try it. It seemed to fit all of her mommy car desires, but I couldn’t get over the MPG. There had to be something else out there that would get closer to the Sonata’s MPG.

2013 Ford Escape

I left the dealership that day planning to do some more research in the evening. I focused on the MPG issue and found a few other cars in its class. I’ve been keeping up with Ford lately — because I like that they didn’t take my tax money — and heard great things about their hybrid technology. I was shocked to see that they removed the hybrid engine from the Escape in the 2013 models. They replaced it with a smaller, more efficient gas engine… but added a turbo charger to it and dubbed it “eco boost.”

I’m sorry; a turbo charger isn’t economic.

Even still, we went to the closest Ford dealer and put it through the paces that evening. Neither of us was impressed: we didn’t like the ride, the console layout, the sticker price, or the gas mileage. Everyone knows that a turbo charged engine only gets the rated MPG if you drive like an old person.

Well, hello, 2013 Mazda CX-5

Luckily, during a 30-minute research session after work, I found the Mazda CX-5. It’s entirely new to the class because it replaced the CX-7, a terribly misguided vehicle with a high price and awful MPG. Everything I saw seemed to praise the new CX-5, so we headed there after the Ford dealership.

I called the dealer on the way to make sure they had the AWD version available for a test drive. They did, but they were about 30-minutes away from closing so I wanted to make it quick. Taylor was great, took us for a drive and then talked numbers with us. We looked at leasing the various models and decided to go with the mid-level touring model. We walked away with some pretty good numbers but wanted to chat with Hyundai again to see what we’d get over there.

The bait and switch

While car shopping, you should always consider any possible incentives including rebates and loyalty discounts. I knew that Hyundai wanted to sell my car so I figured I would get a smoking deal on whatever new car I purchased. I was very, very wrong.

The next day, I ended up back at the Hyundai dealership to talk numbers. I told them I was really looking at the Mazda CX-5 but that I wanted to see where they would go with incentives. After crunching the numbers, they were going to give me $2000 in rebates and $500 in loyalty discounts if I went with the Hyundai Tucson… but the numbers still looked terrible. That’s when Dave mentioned negative equity.

I ❤ Negative Equity

Negative equity is the difference between how much you owe on something and how much that something is actually worth. The numbers get worse when you’re trying to trade a vehicle with a dealer because they always underbid the value to grab more profit from the transaction. In general, a lease is designed to make sure the car stays in the negative equity range until you’re done with the lease… even at lease end, you could still be negative depending on the depreciation of the vehicle.

I was naive with the Sonata’s negative equity; I assumed that Hyundai would forgive it since they asked me to come in and give up my car for another customer. After explaining my frustration with the sales guy — I emphasized that I didn’t need out of my lease — they decided to up the trade-in value of the Sonata to “help me.” Offering help to someone who didn’t ask to break his or her lease is like donating to the IRS; you already owe the money, positioning it as charity makes you look stupid.

Smoke and mirrors

After going back and forth with them for nearly 2 hours, they got me within $400 of being neutral. I still wouldn’t budge. They were just using rebates and loyalty discounts as smoke and mirrors. If they were interested in making a deal, they should’ve increased the trade-in value of the Sonata that they wanted to sell — that’s the only way to eliminate unprovoked negative equity without being sleazy.

If I just waited out the duration of my lease, I wouldn’t have any negative equity and I’d be able to use those “incentives” to discount the actual price of the vehicle. Maybe they thought I was stupid because I took the bait. This experience made me wonder how many other people they were able to manipulate to their advantage. Thankfully, I realized that not everything added up, and I was furious.

Research until your brain hurts

I had a lot of research to do before I would give up: there are 263 new cars for sale in America this year… one of those must fit our requirements and our budget. I didn’t spend too much time deciding what type of vehicle to purchase because I’ve owned or extensively driven everything on the market. That’s why I decided to lease my lackluster Sonata — I wanted to maximize fuel efficiency, minimize my monthly payments and still be comfortable without a long-term commitment. For this buying round, we settled on a small SUV and disqualified the following:

• Car — I was tired of hitting my head on the roof when I enter the car.
• Medium or Large SUV — they get terrible gas mileage and have unnecessary space.
• Crossover — I haven’t seen a sleek crossover and the mileage is always unimpressive.
• Van or Mini Van — if you buy a minivan, you’ve given up.
• Truck — I’d take that mythical hybrid diesel truck that got 50+ MPG over anything else.

We also looked at Hybrid technology; I didn’t want to buy a car without getting awesome gas mileage. This savings calculator showed me that it wasn’t the right time for a hybrid. Unless you buy a Lincoln or a Buick — they don’t charge extra for hybrid technology — a brand new hybrid is not cost effective unless you keep it for more than six years (on average). I only found one 2013 hybrid small SUV: the Lexus RX 450h… it starts $17,000 more than the fully loaded Mazda CX-5 and gets the same gas mileage. It’s also intermittently considered a crossover, so I wasn’t interested.

I spent a lot of time researching the Mazda CX-5 and ultimately drooled over this comparison from Car and Driver. They put every coveted vehicle in the small SUV class (under $30,000) to the test, and the Mazda CX-5 came out on top. I know there are many automotive resources out there, but I generally like C&D’s comparison testing.

All of the other comparisons I read had the CX-5 in the top two choices, sometimes 2nd to the Honda CR-V, which is less fuel efficient and more expensive. The Mazda CX-5 makes the CR-V look out dated and gas hungry; it even bested my Sonata’s average MPG. The only other SUV that came close was the new Subaru XV Crosstrek, but it has even less power under the hood… and it’s ugly. With every review, I fell more in love with the CX-5.

Figuring out the “why”

I seriously considered just waiting for my lease to mature. Yes, I was tired of the Sonata (and mad at Hyundai) but was it really worth dealing with the negative equity? Laura didn’t express any distaste for the Tucson but was leaning towards the CX-5. It also didn’t look like the Tucson would give us any substantial financial benefit over the CX-5… so we wanted the Mazda.

Laura and I decided that leasing the CX-5 wasn’t appealing; we could buy it for what I considered a negligible difference in the monthly payments and we’d own it at the end of the term instead of starting over after the lease matures. Since I had done so much research, I knew that no other manufacturer made or was making a car that would make more sense for the two of us. I could hope that the 2014/2015 models had the same price and efficiency or I could just buy the 2013 now… after all, it fit all of our strict requirements.

So how much did the negative equity affect my choice of purchase? Actually, it didn’t make a difference. If I kept the Sonata until the lease matured in 15 months, I would be throwing away 15 months of payments to a car we didn’t want. I was willing to swallow the negative equity… if that meant we had the right car today versus 15 months from now. I’m not getting any younger, and there’s the ever-present discussion of kids, so getting into a vehicle that would help facilitate that seemed like a good idea.

That satisfies the “why,” but we still had to figure out the “what.” Buying the Mazda CX-5 was the right choice, but I had to consider which version to purchase. If I’m going to buy, I like to maximize the residual value by buying the best trim available. We also had leather seats in our initial requirements so the Grand Touring CX-5 was the only satisfactory option. It didn’t hurt that it had a moon roof and a whole bunch of extras. We elected to pass on the tech package: navigation and minor extras… I hate navigation with a passion. Now we just needed to figure out how to make everything work in our favor.

Groove Mazda

We pulled into Groove Mazda and immediately sat down with Chris Chapman, our new sales guy. I wasn’t going to play games, so I asked him to show me leasing numbers on the Grand Touring CX-5 with the 2011 Sonata as a trade-in. Unlike the other Mazda dealer, they had exactly what I wanted on the lot. Obviously, they came back low… lower than I predicted. I explained the original offer and told them that they needed to meet or exceed it to make the sale. We went back and forth a couple more times, and I ultimately had to walk away assuming what I wanted just wasn’t possible.

I still wasn’t willing to give up; the Mazda wouldn’t get out of my head. I also had what I call “Saturday Evening Advantage” — if a dealer is trying to close out the week on a good note, they’ll show greater than normal flexibility. I called the other Mazda shop and told them what we wanted to do so they had a chance to come up with something that worked for us. On the way over, the new car manager of Groove Mazda called me on my cell to let me know that he was sorry I left before he could speak with me. He was working with another customer when we walked out the door and didn’t have a chance to review the terms. He gave me exactly what I wanted and apologized for missing the mark earlier. I thanked him but let him know that I was already near the other Mazda dealer and that I would give them a shot before heading back to Groove. He understood, but called again a couple minutes later to improve their offer a bit. I was more than satisfied with the first call, but the second one made me realize I had to go back. McDonald Mazda wasn’t willing to budge any more (they also didn’t have the car on the lot), so they lost the sale. We drove back to Groove Mazda for the paperwork.

Good vs. evil

Groove Mazda did a great job of getting me into the vehicle I wanted under terms that worked for me. I highly recommend them. Taylor at McDonald Mazda, you were awesome, but your colleagues dumped you on a mountain that was too steep to climb.

I could’ve done without the drama from McDonald Hyundai – their customer service was so gloriously awful that I bought a different brand entirely… props to them. I’ll make sure they end up with a link to this article. I hope that they will reflect on their actions and decide to be less evil in the future. Please stop trying to trick people; it’s seriously bad business.

I’m awesome at math

Here’s the ultimate takeaway from this experience: trying to spin a bad number into a good number doesn’t work with me. I can also read people well and determine the worth of their character. Dave looks like the sleaziest car salesman I’ve ever encountered. At one point, he told me that he created this program to help people buy a slightly used car if they didn’t qualify for a new one. That sounded very humanitarian and too good to be true for one of the most misgiven industries in America.

After running the gauntlet, it appears that Dave was hunting down previous customers to up-sell them into new contracts. Sleazy, Dave… very sleazy. We already had a terrible experience when leasing the Sonata the first time — everything was late, they messed up the paperwork and seemed too busy to be bothered — but this second experience destroyed any possibility of us recommending McDonald Automotive in the future. To their chagrin, I’m also a very active blogger.

I own a sexy Mazda

Let’s face it — the CX-5 is a sexy, full-efficient mommy car that most people haven’t heard of yet. You’re welcome, Internet. Sure, the whole process could’ve gone smoother, but it gave me a topic for the website. Laura and I are happy it’s over. We’re still satisfied with our purchase even after a few days with the vehicle. If anything changes, we’ll let you know.

I should probably mention a few detractors but any normal person wouldn’t consider them deal-breakers. The engine is underpowered: better than the aforementioned Subaru but worse than everything else. I let this slide because it felt good enough during the test drive and gets amazing gas mileage for its class (I’ve verified this over the last few days). It matches my old Sonata’s MPG perfectly.

As the driver, the Bluetooth car phone sounds very tinny and distorted to me but Laura preferred it to the “muffled” sound of the Sonata. Everyone I called said it sounded great. I use the Bluetooth connectivity extensively while I’m on the road, so it will take some time to adapt. The Bluetooth streaming (iPhone music, podcasts, etc.) is perfect and the speakers are wonderful.

Why isn’t there a light in the glove box? I’m taking this thing back!

All jokes aside, Groove Mazda turned a miserable experience into a sale that affects the future of our family. Laura and I want to thank Chris and the rest of the sales team for bringing respect and customer service to a new level; we’ll share the word as often as possible.

The post Good vs Evil – Buying a New Car appeared first on voice.

My life is a struggle of in and out of focus Christianity and a desire for God that strobes like a bad horror movie. Every time I feel encouraged in faith, someone, something or a whole group of people do something extremely stupid that makes me wonder, “Why would I ever want to be part of that club?”

Wearing the Christian brand is something I want for my relationship with God, but it’s a scarlet letter for Apologists. I’m not using the classical definition of Apologists (Wikipedia); I’m using it to refer to the countless number of Christians who end up apologizing for their “brothers and sisters.”

Don’t all Christians read the same Bible, follow the same rules, and have the same beliefs? Why should one Christian apologize for another? The easy answer is that not one of us is perfect, but we have God’s grace waiting for us when we fall. Unfortunately, many people don’t understand God’s grace. We apologize to those people because they’ve probably known a Christian who knocked them down as they fell.

I’m not afraid to tell someone I’m a Christian. All too often, after the initial shock subsides, non-Christians tell me stories of the fallen: their Christian aunt who shoves religion down their throat, their Christian next door neighbor who leaves nasty letters in their mailbox but invites them to church every week, or their Christian parent who drank too much and beat them but taught Bible school every Sunday. I don’t like it, but I’m sure that I’ve been the story of the fallen for a non-Christian at some point.

We all fail, we’re all mean, we all have stupid opinions… some just do it louder than others. For the purposes of this post, we’ll call the loud ones Elitists. They are often the most vocal and ignorant sample of the Christian political spectrum.

Conservatism versus Liberalism

I cannot understand a religion where people live on both sides of the fence. In the US, we typically refer to this as Republican versus Democrat… but it’s become much more complicated than that in the last couple years, especially in the Christian sector. As a dramatic overcorrection for the Democratic domination of 2008, the American people voted heavily for Republican candidates during the 2010 midterm elections. It was a play to regain checks and balances; no one party should control the Presidency, House, and Senate. Unfortunately, those elections introduced a new Republican subculture called the Tea Party — it’s safe to consider them Elitist.

The Tea Party does not understand the meaning of compromise. They often call upon their morals to justify their political positions. Most of the time, they vote by a matter of principle: if the Democrats want one outcome, they want they other. By their name’s definition, their only real purpose is to wreak havoc on the government. People on both sides of the political spectrum blame the Tea Party for the complete lack of political progress during the last two years, and it’s not going away. Some people view that as a point of pride; others see it as a disgrace to the American political system.

Factual Information

This ongoing polarity has reached ridiculous depths, ever changing the campaign strategy from reason and benefit to illusion and detriment. As one group becomes more popular, another group battles back to regain their foothold. It’s not even confined to election season any more; politicians campaign endlessly to prove they’re fighting for the American people… even when they aren’t. Often, these groups turn to political propaganda to convince the inexperienced (dare I say naive or ignorant?) that their lies are true. ”Oh, but it’s not a lie, it’s just spin.” Spin only exists to fool the ignorant into believing an exaggerated truth… in other words, a lie. Because of spin, we now accept “fact checkers” as a normal part of our political atmosphere. Am I the only one who finds that disappointing?

The media — paper, television, radio, etc. — is the most influential source of information. It’s even extremely easy to setup a website and gain readership (you decided to read this didn’t you?). With how much the media throws at us in this digital age, it’s impossible to trust anything said anywhere in any medium… but people do just that. Someone reads something online, tells their friend who tells another friend and, after traveling through two intermediaries, they accept it as a fact because they heard it from a trusted source. Have you ever played a game of telephone? All messages passed from one person to another drop or pickup new concepts: relational to complexity. That’s without considering the validity of the original source material.

Negativity is king. The media will always do what’s best for their bottom line. If a controversial article attracts more hits, they’ll post it just to gain ad revenue from pageviews. When an industry considers positivity boring and negativity exciting, they’ll report on every negative bit of news they can find — robberies, house fires and especially murder. Haven’t you wondered why the media only covers the failures or mistakes of our politicians?

Ultimately, every piece of news you find has bias… most of it is dripping with spin to satisfy a certain political slant. Don’t believe me? Remove yourself from politics for a moment and realize that Fox News sleeps with conservatives and MSNBC shelters large quantities of liberals. Even NPR has a political slant: as an organization, it claims no allegiance, but the reporters can’t seem to remove political emotion from their segments.

Fixing Ignorance

Too many people are content with lazy consumption. I’ve repeatedly suggested snopes.com to a number people who easily accept questionable information and share it with their friends. Those people always challenge me with this question, “Why would I trust that website over this one?” They’re more than willing to trust some biased news channel, email or commenter online, but they won’t trust a website dedicated to (and financially dependent on) unbiased fact checking for the general public’s education. Oh, internet, I love you.

These interactions demonstrate my theory that our nation is too lazy to fix its ignorance. As a result, we elect government officials and pay them to make educated decisions for us while we yell from the sidelines, complaining that they’re doing it wrong. If we happen to pay attention to a particular vote where our representative ignores our desire and votes the other way, we’ll do everything we can to make sure they don’t get another office. Politicians and voters, alike, believe they’re the puppeteer controlling the marionette and making it dance — each spinning different directions creating a twisted mess with plenty of strings attached.

Ethics versus Morals

With this new class of politicking comes a media that preys on the ignorant and elected officials who believe they’re fulfilling the will of the people. The will of their supporters, donors, advisors, may not always be what’s best for the country and our representatives should be intelligent enough to grasp that concept. I’m afraid that politicians who have that understanding are being banished by ignorant puppeteers. We have a political epidemic seething through our nation compounded by an inability to differentiate ethics and morals. All too often, people consider ethics and morals interchangeable but the definitions are quite different. I’ve studied various definitions and written new guidelines for this particular argument. You will not find these in any dictionary:

• Ethics – rational and logical thinking that, while influenced by social norms, entertains all arguments equally and determines the most beneficial outcome for the greatest number of people.
• Morals – an unwavering belief system, typically defined by religious or secular philosophy and tradition, that determines right from wrong with no regard for alternate viewpoints.

If our elected officials could leave their morals at the door but bring their ethics inside, we’d have a much healthier system that could actually work towards compromise. Unfortunately, most of our politicians don’t understand the difference. For example, Paul Ryan said during the Vice Presidential Debate that he couldn’t separate his religion from his politics. That’s absolutely incorrect; he chooses to let his morals influence his politics. If he focused on the ethics not the morality of the political argument, we may have seen a different outcome for the presidential race.

Just like that debate, Republicans shifted the fiscal cliff discussion from ethics to morals. The ethical viewpoint would be a compromise that doesn’t tailspin the nation back into a recession. Instead, they’ve decided to hold our nation hostage for their morals of small government. They fight to keep the Bush-era tax cuts while the rest of us will see an average of $2,400 in increased taxes. Ethics and morals are important, but when an entire nation’s economic future is in jeopardy, ethics should always win.

One Nation, with Ethics

One Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Every US citizen is familiar with the Pledge of Allegiance, but any observer could say there’s no truth behind those words. Our nation is very different from that of our founding fathers. How much longer can we choose to ignore one of the most important texts from our history? To better illustrate the importance, let’s start from the end and go backwards.

Liberty and justice are completely relative to the moral society we created. Any gay marriage proponent would loudly object to our nation’s concept of freedom. Alternatively, for every one of you who thinks racism is dead, I’ll find you five people to prove otherwise… and yet, we call that freedom.

Is our nation too large to continue functioning at a reasonably productive level? If our nation is so divided that one person can accurately calculate the state-by-state outcome of a presidential election, maybe we should look at alternative voting procedures. However, we could be to the point where a divided nation would be better overall… but everyone is afraid to define that relationship.

We are no longer one Nation, under God. We are one Nation, with agnostics, atheists, Buddhists, Jews, Catholics, Protestants and a growing number of other beliefs. While God is the driving motivator in my life, I do not believe that we can have a free and just nation that assumes all people worship the same god… or any god at all. Like the forceful aunt I mentioned earlier, our government shouldn’t let its members vote with their religion in mind.

We are supposed to be a nation that separates church and state, but that really only applies to running for office. No “religious tests” have ever been necessary to hold office, but our politicians are more than willing to preach their religion with their votes (gay marriage?). True separation of church and state comes with a government that rules with ethics.

Every single person has individualized morals that our current political system cannot perfectly satisfy. If we could ignore morals and vote strictly with ethics, maybe our country could finally climb out of this recession and back into a position of dominance in the modern world. Instead of one Nation, under God — we should be one Nation, with Ethics.

An Ethical Utopia

I love this concept of Ethics-driven politics because it relies heavily on logic. Logical reasoning plays a tremendously large roll in my life. For better or worse, I question everything and cannot blindly follow anything. Blindly voting along party lines is a perfect example of a broken system. If our politicians were brave enough to vote based on ethics alone, we wouldn’t face ridiculous issues like the fiscal cliff.

We, as the voting people, would also need to change the way we approach politics. Voting Democrat or Republican becomes pointless with a system of independent thought. However, our laziness prevents this from becoming reality; instead of researching candidates, most people elect along party lines because they generally share the same political views. Even if our Nation were ready to change this broken system, people would find a new way to bastardize it so they can satisfy their laziness.

We can only dream of a day where the norm shifts towards ethics: rational and logical thinking that, while influenced by social norms, entertains all arguments equally and determines the most beneficial outcome for the greatest number of people.

On that day, we’ll be able to wear our religion — any religion — on our sleeves without fear of social backlash.

On that day, we’ll no longer need to apologize for the Elitists we regretfully call brother and sister.

On that day, our nation will understand the true meaning of democratic freedom.

Someday, I hope our nation is brave enough to get there.

The post Ethics versus Morals appeared first on voice.