Although it might look like nothing more than a giant iPod, the release of the Apple iPad is being hailed as nothing short of revolutionary. But exactly what sort of a revolution will this be? This Los Angeles Times preview talks about how book publishers, newspapers, and magazines alike are looking to the iPad for salvation. To be sure, the iPad might bring daily reading to a generation of young Americans that is as familiar with newspapers as it is with record players and typewriters. But it is also alarming to think that iPads could eventually replace books. It is a well established fact that the medium, as one sociologist famously put it, affects the message. We have seen this with newspapers and the Internet. Just compare the New York Times print edition with any one of its blogs—almost always, the writing in the former is stronger, more complex, and more information. So yes, iPads may revive reading for a generation that now spends only seven minutes a day engaged in the activity, but in so doing, will it also ruin reading? … And yes, I recognize the irony of saying such things on a blog.
Archive for January, 2010
Will the iPad Revive or Ruin Reading?
Saturday, January 30th, 2010GOP For Tax Breaks, Except When Democrats Are
Friday, January 29th, 2010Obama had a lot of bad ideas in his State of the Union address. But one good one was tax credits for businesses that hire workers. This seems like the kind of smart governance we sorely need—a welcome break from the backwards thinking that tends to be the norm. Rhode Island, for example, has had such difficulty in keeping up with unemployment benefits, it has had to borrow about $127 million from the federal government. In order to avoid even more debt, however, the state is looking to raise unemployment taxes on businesses, which means even less money in the pot for hiring. In other words, state unemployment benefits could drive unemployment higher. A tax credit, however, could give businesses incentives to hire, reduce the amount they owe in taxes, and avoid higher spending.
So conservatives should be all over this one, right? Well, The Heritage Foundation isn’t. And check out this House Republican response which ignores the credit and just talks about all the other taxes Obama is cooking up. So what’s so bad about the tax credit? Well, all The Heritage Foundation says that it didn’t work because small businesses didn’t know about it. But isn’t that easy to fix? Heritage also predict that the credit will prolong unemployment because businesses will put off hiring until they can get the credit. But wait, I thought businesses wouldn’t know about it anyway? For another perspective, check out this New York Times story, which cites specific sources and a study that say the tax credit did and will work.
In truth, the tax credit is something that Republicans should at least welcome, if not embrace. How do I know this? Because Republicans already have. Back in Rhode Island, the Republican governor proposed a similar tax credit at the state level. And even Rep. Eric Cantor, the House Republican whip, praised the idea. But then he changed his mind after a ‘closed-door’ House GOP meeting.
State of the Union Pet Peeves
Thursday, January 28th, 2010Beyond the factual errors and policy miscalculations, there was so much in the State of the Union that was just downright annoying. Below, in no particular order, is a list of what peeved me the most.
● From the start, Obama claims the worst is over. Really? Unemployment was at 7.2 percent when Obama took office. Last month it was at 10 percent. How about that housing market? Well, the sale of previously owned homes is at a 40-year low. And we have all that government-induced inflation to look forward to.
● Obama says the country can’t afford partisanship right now. Which is code for Republicans shouldn’t be critical.
● Obama also warns against fear and division. Read: grassroots conservative activism.
● Without the bank bailouts, Obama says unemployment would be double what it is today. Remember, this is the same guy who claimed that his stimulus plan would keep unemployment at 7 percent. By 2010.
● Obama says his commission to cut spending is not a gimmick. Which is exactly what it is.
● He says it is common sense to spend trillions to rescue the economy and avoid leaving the country in a mountain of debt.
● He blames TV pundits and CEOs for cynicism. How about politicians who can’t deliver on their promises?! (See nos. 1 and 4).
● He thinks he can solve health care, the economy, and global warming all at once. But he can’t. He also says that the country needs to face the hard truths. Is he listening to what he’s saying?
● He says America draws its strengths from its ideals. Then he mentions equality. Which is fine, but what about freedom? And, by the way, those ideals are citied in the Declaration of Independence, not the U.S. Constitution, Mr. President.
Obama and the Limits of Rhetoric
Thursday, January 28th, 2010
If President Obama’s State of the Union speech accomplished anything last night, it was in showing the limits of speeches. Of course, Obama marshaled as much rhetorical firepower as he could for the occasion. He urged Americans to answer the call of history. He spoke of a deficit of dollars as well as trust. And, in a nice turn of phrase, he conceded that although he won on the promise of change we can believe in, some Americans aren’t sure they believe the country can change. Indeed, what a difference a year makes. Such phrases might have struck a chord or stirred passion at the inauguration, but last night they seemed flaccid and cliched. The man who called on Americans to pick themselves up, dust themselves off, and remake their country, seemed to be doing the same to his presidency last night.
And what a mess it was. Instead of offering a comprehensive vision for American recovery, Obama dished out a hodgepodge of meta-policies and micro-initiatives: the good, the bad, and the fads. In the good column: tax credits for hiring and loans to small businesses. Not good enough: a plan to freeze spending, except for defense, except for all the enormous entitlement problems, and not until 2011. The very bad: Obama stuck to his guns on health care and suggested that that creating a massive new government program would bring down the deficit—a claim that defies belief, if anything in his speech did. And, meanwhile, Obama still wants to end global warming and get gays into the military. Ending the war in Iraq and winning in Afghanistan, meanwhile, were afterthoughts. Ditto for homeland security.
And as much as Obama tried to respond to the anger, anxieties, and frustrations of ordinary Americans, his choice of words was revealing. He said he knew their pain, but not, as Clinton did, that he felt it. But does he really know it? With double digit unemployment, a housing market in a bottomless free-fall, and cash-strapped businesses, his words failed to measure up to the gravity of economic reality. Like the emperor without clothes, Obama seemed as much deluded as his audience.
Conservatives Flip Flopped on Health Care
Thursday, January 21st, 2010The National Review has not explicitly contradicted itself on health care, but there is a glaring inconsistency between how it talks about health care reform, depending upon whom is in power. As I mentioned below, when National Review endorsed Mitt Romney in 2007, the fact that he had backed a government overhaul of health care in Massachusetts did not seem to bother the editors. Here is how they talk about the issue in 2007:
His conservative accomplishments as governor showed that he can work with, and resist, a Democratic legislature. He knows that not every feature of the health-care plan he enacted in Massachusetts should be replicated nationally, but he can also speak with more authority than any of the other Republican candidates about this pressing issue.
And here is just a sample of the typical way National Review now talks about health care reform under Obama in a not-so-subtly titled article, ‘Give Me Liberty, or Give Me Obamacare’:
At its core, what Obamacare really means is a loss of freedom. …
The motivation is to replace millions of private choices with a command-and-control model in which health-care decisions and health-care resources are centrally administered and allocated by the federal government — under the ultimate command, at least initially, of Barack Obama. The motivation is simple and can be reduced to one word: power. And it doubtless has the American Founders, who dedicated their lives to securing liberty, spinning in their graves.
Both plans increased costs, reduced freedom, and resulted in higher taxes (click here and here for more). And yet, there is a striking disparity in how National Review talks about them. The difference of course is that one was enacted under a Republican administration and the other is being advocated by a Democrat. It just goes to show how conservatives lost their critical distance from political power. For the record, I oppose both health care reform plans—and I wish National Review conservatives would too.
Both Parties the Same on Health Care?
Thursday, January 21st, 2010Here is a dirty little secret of this whole health care debacle: the latest version of the health care bill in the U.S. Senate closely resembles—brace yourself—the plan that Republican Mitt Romney signed into law as Massachusetts governor in 2006, according to The American Spectator. Both reforms did not include a government-run insurance program or an expansion of Medicare. Both did expand Medicaid and have an individual mandate to purchase insurance—with penalties attached. And yet Romney was the conservative standard bearer in the race, having received the official stamp of approval from National Review. How can this be? And then, when the same plan comes in Democratic packaging conservatives and Republicans shriek in horror.
Which brings me to the Scott Brown victory in Massachusetts last night. Yes, it was immensely gratifying to see liberal Democrats suffer such an crippling defeat on their home turf. And yet… Brown supports the Romney health care reform in 2006, which makes me wonder what he finds so disagreeable in the current proposal. The cynic in me can’t help but think this is all about politics, not principle, and that at precisely the moment when the differences between the two parties seem so pronounced, there are in fact none. Any Romney supporter who berates Obama voters for making nationalized health care possible should take a look in the mirror.
Avatar: Where Were the Wrinkles?
Monday, January 11th, 2010
Like the owner of Jurassic Park, Director James Cameron spared no expense in making Avatar—especially in generating its special effects. These are so overwhelming that they distract the viewer from the plot. But even the CGI itself is a problem. It’s not that the elements and inhabitants of this world do not look real. Rather, it’s that they are too perfect. Where were the warts and wrinkles? All of the blue humanoids look the same—and it’s not just their color and salamander-like striping. Without exception, all are sleek-looking and youthful. Check out this photo of Eytuken, the supposed patriarch of the Na’vi, and this one of his wife, Mo’at. See any wrinkles or other signs of aging?
The avatar for the Sigourney Weaver character is especially telling. We first meet her as a disheveled, chain-smoking scientist with a scowl and sharp tongue. The spunk of the youthful Weaver in the late-70s Alien has hardened into sarcasm—not to mention the ordinary, tell-tale signs of aging. But once she enters her avatar body, Weaver is completely transfigured. Because we are so captivated by avatar itself, we overlook the fact that she doesn’t have any wrinkles or bags under her eyes. Even her personality is different, more youthful. She smiles for the first time and her eyes light up when the audience first sees her avatar form. Who needs Botox or airbrushing when you have avatars?
Think of the nocturnal hounds that hunt down Jake Sully, the male protagonist. Or the Pandora version of a lion that ambushes him earlier in the day. Like the avatars, they are smooth-skinned and spotless. They meet several criteria for being monsters—terrifying, sinister, and menacing. But they aren’t butt ugly. Instead they are beautiful in a beastly sort of way. Compare their counterparts in the original Star Wars trilogy. Remember the slimy-and-scaly amphibian with the bulbous periscope of an eye in the first movie—the one that drags Han Solo under water in the Death Star? Or the icy sasquatch that takes out Luke Skywalker in The Empire Strikes Back? Or the roaring monster with crooked teeth and uneven eyes that claws at him in the third movie? These were more compelling and memorable because they looked like real-live, flesh-and-blood monsters—a world away from the CGI-chimeras of Avatar.
Ecumenism: Open to Everything … Except Truth
Monday, January 11th, 2010
The debate between Buddhists and Christians is revealing an even broader fissure over what it means to engage in ecumenism, or, interfaith dialogue. Everyone wants to have dialogue—as long as truth claims are excluded. Here is what the Buddhist blogger over at about.com had to say about the issue:
So to say that Christianity is superior to Buddhism because it offers redemption is a bit like saying birds are superior to horses because they have feathers. It’s nonsensical.
I say with all kindness to Christians that you don’t help yourselves by claiming an exclusive right to promote your religion over others. In my experience, such proselytizing alienates at least as many people as it persuades. This is especially true if you have to tell lies about other religions to prove that yours is superior.
Wait a second. Whoever said that Christians have an exclusive right to promote their religion—over others? Not Brit Hume. Nor the Family Research Council in their missive on the issue. While some conservative Christians may go so far as to explicitly argue that this a Christian nation—no one is saying that Buddhists don’t have the freedom to promote their views and win converts. However, it seems that the blogger, Barbara O’Brien, doesn’t even accept the idea of evangelicalism—or as she calls it, proselytizing. And what is this talk of superiority? What O’Brien refers to as ‘superiority’ is really a claim to possess the truth. And the problem with that is….?
This whole superiority theme is picked up by another religious blogger over at USA Today, who says that the debate really is nothing more a playground fight who has the ‘bigger, badder god.’ Here is what the author envisions as acceptable interfaith dialogue:
It’s one thing, however to testify to the peace, wisdom, joy and comfort your particular faith has given you. It’s another to trash talk others’ path to spiritual truth and a life of goodness beyond the so-called good life.
So we can compare notes on peace, wisdom, joy, and comfort. But to get into the truth about who God is or how He saves us, that’s trash-talking! Of course, neither Hume nor the Family Research Council were speaking derogatively about Buddhism. All they did is made value judgments about which offered true redemption—and that, if nothing else is, most certainly a mortal sin in the eyes of our multicultural elites.
Where Avatar Fails
Sunday, January 10th, 2010
Something needs to be said about the failings of Avatar, if only for some relief from all the oohhing and ahhing of awestruck fans. Don’t get me wrong, this film deserves to be spoken of in superlatives—extraordinary, phenomenal, groundbreaking, most beautiful, entertainment of the highest order, shock and awe. In Avatar, director James Cameron has dreamed up a whole new world with its own, internally consistent rules of gravity, biology, and ecology. Its creatures have just the strangely necessary mix of familiar and foreign features that make them believable to us. One can’t think of any other imaginative venture as thoroughly creative and aesthetically fulfilling as this one. Avatar indeed is an extraordinary achievement—and that is precisely why it also fails. In trying to be more, it ends up being less.
It is easy to be carried away by all the special effects—floating mountains, fluorescent flowers, dinosaur-like aliens, and some kind of super-sized Sequoia tree—and forget the storyline entirely. But strip away all the computer generated imagery and the plot could be summarized thusly: Evil corporation invades foreign land, plunders its natural resources, and uproots the indigenous people. The natives confront missiles and machine guns with bow and arrows, facing certain annihilation. Mother Nature steps in deus ex machina, saves the day, and drives out the evil corporation. Kind of reads like environmental pulp fiction, right? With its use of mercenary soldiers and a scowling commander who speaks of shock-and-awe tactics, the film also takes some cheap shots at American imperialism.
But the audience is too absorbed—entranced—by the nonstop CGI to notice any of this. Call it simulation inebriation—the result of the imbalance between being visually over-stimulated and underwhelmed by plot and theme. One reviewer put it best—a wonder to behold, a story to forget.
Hume Was Right on Buddhism
Sunday, January 10th, 2010
The mainstream media and Buddhist bloggers were aghast at Fox commentator Brit Hume’s suggestion that Tiger Woods convert to Christianity from Buddhism. One blogger declared that Hume himself needed to be forgiven for making such a remark and, sensing her own rising anger, quickly quoted a Buddhist proverb on peace. Another blogger called Hume a disgrace and urged him to resign. So what was it that Hume said was so awful? That Buddhists are going to hell? That their religion excuses sexual sinners? Here it is:
He is said to be a Buddhist. I don’t think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. My message to Tiger would be, ‘Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.’
It’s really a fair theological point. All Hume is doing is making a claim that the Christian concept of redemption is unique. Is he really so wrong? Check out this Wikipedia overview of Buddhism. See anything about redemption in there?
But in their initial posts neither Buddhist blogger one defends the faith, instead their first instinct was to be offended. So what’s so bad about saying your religion is different than others? Aren’t we all supposed to celebrate our differences? Well, apparently not when those differences count for something.
Eventually these two bloggers couldn’t avoid engaging in some theological dialogue. And guess what? Turns out Hume was right! One of the above bloggers writes that Buddhism does have “this kind of forgiveness and redemption” but it “just manifests itself in a completely different way.” If it manifests itself in a completely different way is it still the same kind? Well the second blogger doesn’t seem to think so, admitting that: “Buddhism has no concept of sin; therefore, redemption and forgiveness in the Christian sense are meaningless in Buddhism.” So Hume was right, but he was still wrong to say so. There’s the logic of multiculturalism for you.