The Smarter Fish

Let’s take the word “Marriage” out of all legal documents. We’re not gonna abolish the word, we’re not going to redefine the word, we’re not going to “shoe-horn” another meaning into the word, or open up the types of definitions the word can have.

Marriage will stay the same as it has for as long as it has had a meaning: “A union between a man and a woman.”

Now, let’s replace the word “Marriage”, with these words: “Civil Union.” We’re going to redefine that word, and we’re going to use it in place–legally–of “Marriage.”

Under the eyes of The Law; “Marriage” will have no legal standing, two people–a woman and a man, a man and a man, a woman and a woman–will from now on, legally, referred to as a “Civil Union.”

If religious people run to defend a word steeped in religious ritual and law, because of the word having great religious meaning; then that word has no constitutional place within our legal system.

In short, defending an entity within a legal standpoint using only a religious defense is unconstitutional.

An interesting documentary from the BBC running 180 minutes in three parts: Baby It’s Cold Outside, The Phantom Victory, and The Shadows In The Cave. Wikipedia has a good overview about the special:

The films compare the rise of the American Neo-Conservative movement and the radical Islamist movement, making comparisons on their origins and noting strong similarities between the two. More controversially, it argues that the threat of radical Islamism as a massive, sinister organised force of destruction, specifically in the form of al-Qaeda, is in fact a myth perpetrated by politicians in many countries—and particularly American Neo-Conservatives—in an attempt to unite and inspire their people following the failure of earlier, more utopian ideologies.

You can watch the three-part documentary down below, or check out the respective Google Video pages (link to video is within respective titles).

The Power of Nightmares Part One: Baby It’s Cold Outside

The Power of Nightmares Part Two: The Phantom Victory

The Power of Nightmares Part Three: The Shadows in the Cave

If I had a hypothetical five minutes with The President, I would ask him the following:

How, Mr. President, can you state so adamantly that the predominantly Saudi Arabian terrorists that attacked us on September 11th, 2001, hated us for our freedom when you have made it your pleasure to take those very freedoms away? Are you trying to take away their very reason for hatred? If America didn’t have any personal freedoms/civil liberties, do you think we would be safe?

Or, maybe:

Mr. President, you have stated that we are hated for our freedom. Yet, six short weeks after September 11th, 2001, you enabled Congress to encroach on our civil liberties. Are you insinuating that our personal freedoms were a contributing factor to those attacks on September 11th, 2001? By taking away our Freedom, are you alluding to the idea that the terrorists. were correct in thinking we had too much Freedom?

How about this one:

Mr. President, if we are hated for our Freedom, why weren’t other free-loving countries also attacked? I am aware of the London and Madrid incidents, yet those weren’t attributed to Freedom as the underlying cause. Could it be, Mr. President, that our meddling–and not our Freedom–in the Middle East could be the actual reason the World Trade Center was targeted?

Assuming he would follow the track he has been on since he addressed the nation on September 11th, 2001, his answer would be something close to, “America was targeted for attack because we’re the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world.”

Then why, Mr. President, have you decided to time-and-time again take away the very things we are defending? You have authorized the Federal Government to spy and impose on the American People. Is the fact that we have too much freedom to blame for the attacks? Is this why you have authorized countless measures that curtail (or altogether remove) many of our personal freedoms? Do you wish to defend our Freedom by removing it?

Hierarchy is important, on web-pages, just as in real-life. People need to know where they are; they need to know where the current piece of information fits in as a whole. It gives people a sense of direction, and lets them know where their current location fits in whatever you’re trying to present them.

If you’re reading an article, it makes sense to have something pointing you to even more articles:

Articles » Don’t Quote Me

That bread crumb would inform you that you’re reading an article, and if “Articles” was a link (imagine it is) it should lead you to more articles.

We’ve gotten good at this as a whole; we’re presenting relationships in a logical manner even more. However, there is a problem…

Quotation Marks

That glyph in the previous example (”»”) is a quotation mark; for a host of nations and languages.

Let’s look at a few more examples:

Articles » Don’t Quote Me

Articles › Don’t Quote Me

Articles ” Don’t Quote Me

Articles ’ Don’t Quote Me

Articles „ Don’t Quote Me

Articles ‚ Don’t Quote Me

All of these symbols have one thing in common: they are all quotation marks; they do not naturally resemble a relationship. This is a problem if your main language–the language you use most fluently–is not English.

The first two examples “fit”; they seem to point to the second item. I know they look snazzy (and the fact there’s a pointy-end and a nonpointy-end don’t help), they just don’t work.

The last four are quotation marks, in English and other languages. They don’t “fit”; something feels odd about using them in this context. Do they resemble a relationship between the two items?

No. They are out-of-place. English-speaking programmers/designers wouldn’t use an English quotation mark (or those last two at the bottom) to signify a relationship; why do we use a foreign-language to do so?

What’s a Boy to Do?

Let me all introduce you to one of the seldom-used “arrow” glyphs:

Articles → Don’t Quote Me

The arrow is universal, it starts somewhere, and goes to another place, as-if to say: “Hey, I’m taking you here. I know you stared over there, but this is where we’ll end up. These two pieces of information share a relationship, and the direction of my pointy-end shows you an example of that relationship”.

There’s also an arrow going in another direction:

Articles ← Don’t Quote Me

Just looking at it you know that there is a relationship to these two things. They go together:

Mom and Dad → Lil’ Jessica

It might as well say:

Mom and Dad had Lil’ Jessica

Taking it a step further:

Lil’ Jessica belongs to Mom and Dad

Depending upon use, and how you decide to prevent your information, you can utilize various arrows in different positions and context to show your avid readers hierarchy & relationships:

1. ← ← leftwards arrow
2. ↑ ↑ upwards arrow
3. → → rightwards arrow
4. ↓ ↓ downwards arrow
5. ↔ ↔ left right arrow
6. ↵ ↵ downwards arrow with corner leftwards

Of course, this solution creates a problem: using arrow glyphs inside the HTML title tag is problematic. I’ll admit it first: I don’t have a solution to this.

The Dash Glyph

I’m well aware that some languages use the – (–) as the start of a quote. It does, however, signify a change in pace or thought in the English Language. I’m okay with this; it already has multiple meanings.

Previously mentioned, I’ve been having some thoughts about Scratch Pad; mainly where it’s headed

Scratch Pad is heading in a new direction–an easier direction:

1. get a thought
2. jot it down
   1. save it away for later
   2. move it to something else to
      1. share
      2. expand
      3. collaborate
      4. organize

All while being easy-to-use, simple, and ubiquitous. Please stay informed with the Scratch Pad project page.