When Political Correctness Attacks!

No country is perfect, and none have an infallible system of dealing with it’s citizens those in the rest of the world. When I look at other countries, I see facets of my own that I truly appreciate and believe are good, while there are other cases when I don’t like what we’re doing here in Canada. For example, I enjoy living in a multi-cultural country, and when I look at other countries that aren’t, I see them as being more bland and in the worst cases, downright repressive. Repressing one group in order meet the needs of another does cause problems for me, however, and the biggest issue concerning the Christian church is the issue of homosexual unions. Personally, I don’t have a problem with two men or women wanting to enjoy all the rights and privileges that married couples enjoy, such as income tax issues, not being compelled to testify against one another, etc. The church, however, opposes it being labelled “marriage” just as they would be opposed to labelling a male transvestite as “female” – because that’s not what it is. Moreover, they fear the future of the trend, where there may come a time when the church, currently the most frequent administrator of marriage, will be compelled by legislation to perform ceremonies in conflict with their beliefs.

Here’s a tough one, though. Read this article about a current case where cultural sensitivity is coming into direct conflict with gender sensitivity. Here in Canada, we require that a female police officer be present when searching and handling female suspects. Is that different? Is one of the groups over-reacting? Where does cultural sensitivity end and insensitivity begin? Whatever your opinion, please leave your comments.

(Micro)Soft in the head

Once again, Microsoft has cemented their reputation for being the cosmic black hole of innovation and originality. At this point, it’s more pitiable than infuriating. Yes, it irritated me that they knocked off the MacOS interface for the first Windows release, then later realized the changes they made to keep it original stunk, so they knocked off the interface again with less modifications for Windows 95. They did it again when they brutalized Netscape to create Internet Explorer, and yet again, raped RealPlayer’s interface to give birth to Windows Media Player. Microsoft officially announced their intention to continue the trend when they released the X-Box to compete with the Sony Playstation 2 and Nintendo Game Cube, demonstrating their gift for mediocrity.

Now that the Apple iPod has surrounded the digital music industry with it’s ubiquitous white earbuds, Microsoft has decided to grab a piece of the action. Unfortunately, they’ve demonstrated yet again that they really don’t have an innovative bone in their bloated, slothful corporate body with the introduction of the Microsoft Zune. Forget about the fact that the Zune doesn’t support Microsoft’s own PlayForSure music format, whose website proudly proclaims the wonders of buying PlayForSure compatible devices… which exclude the iPod and Zune but include the comparable Zen by Creative Labs. Hrm… “Zen” and “Zune.” Coincidence?

Let’s just forget that the device has built in WiFi that can only be used to transfer a music file to another Zune. We can overlook the fact that the Zune is incapable of being used as an external hard drive, in spite of its moderate 30 gigabytes. Let’s also not concern ourselves with the fact that, unlike Apple’s simple and affordable $0.99/song iTunes store, Microsoft is selling songs for 79 “Microsoft points,” which is the company’s slippery way of reducing credit card fees at their end. They’ll give you instant points, and then collect the money later by running multiple cards through their processing system all in one batch, reducing the “per transaction” fee that banks charge retailers. If anyone needs to pinch pennies, it’s Microsoft. Besides, what could be easier than calculating 79.8 Microsoft points per US dollar, purchasable in $5 blocks? It’s definitely cheaper than iTunes Store, but by the time I do the math, I’d rather just pay the extra 19.2 cents.

Instead, let’s shift our focus on style. The Apple iPod, like most Apple products, offers an innovative and esthetically attractive product. The iPod control pad has become the archetype of personal device interfaces, and it’s stark yet sleek design has made it a hit. Even the somewhat less attractive Limited Edition U2 version still catches the eye.

The Microsoft Zune, on the other hand, is about as stylish as any Wal-Mart bargain-bin find. With its translucent cheap-looking plastic case and big black gamepad button, the only eyes it will catch is those of iPod users who snicker at you, and wonder when you’re going to purchase the Zune Pocket Protector and Zune Taped Glasses Earphone accessories.

You would think that, even without a hint of innovation, they would at least attempt to emulate current technology. Instead, the Zune looks stylized after four-year-old Palm devices.I’d also like to find out what brilliant mind sat down at his/her desk and said, “Okay, we’ll do black and white plastic, but we need another colour to set us apart from anyone else. How about brown? You know… like dirt… and feces!”

I personally have no loyalty to a single technology company. There are strengths and weaknesses to them all, so while I rarely play favourites, I’m calling Microsoft out on this one. Come on guys… at least TRY!

Down, Pluto, down!

Watching the media report on scientific matters is a lot like watching a moose describe the feeling of winged flight. The mainstream media’s only goal these days is to have you, the consumer, look at their story over and above anyone else’s so that your consumer eyes will also lap up the advertising that funds their efforts. So it is no great surprise that when the International Astronomical Union began meeting to vote on a resolution to determine the criteria that defines exactly what a “planet” is, the media began reporting the resolution as decided fact. The resolution’s criteria were:

1. A planet is a celestial body that (a) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (b) is in orbit around a star, and is neither a star nor a satellite of a planet.

2. We distinguish between the eight classical planets discovered before 1900, which move in nearly circular orbits close to the ecliptic plane, and other planetary objects in orbit around the Sun. All of these other objects are smaller than Mercury. We recognize that Ceres is a planet by the above scientific definition. For historical reasons, one may choose to distinguish Ceres from the classical planets by referring to it as a “dwarf planet.”

3. We recognize Pluto to be a planet by the above scientific definition, as are one or more recently discovered large Trans-Neptunian Objects. In contrast to the classical planets, these objects typically have highly inclined orbits with large eccentricities and orbital periods in excess of 200 years. We designate this category of planetary objects, of which Pluto is the prototype, as a new class that we call “plutons.”

4. All non-planet objects orbiting the Sun shall be referred to collectively as “Small Solar System Bodies.”

News sources all over the world began reporting that Pluto had been officially recognized as a planet, as well as possibly three other large bodies in our outer solar system; Ceres, Charon and the poetically named UB313. Yet for all the bluster, the media neglected to read the fact that this was simply a resolution to be voted on – not the defining moment, itself.

So it is that poor ol’ Pluto – the smallest, coldest and drooliest of our traditional solar system – has lost its status as a planet after the vote on the resolution. Now it’s just another one of many large rocks that have been caught in the gravitational tether of our sun. There’s been a fair amount of debate on the decision and its repercussions, but what concerns me most is that classic old memory sentence, “My very educated mother just showed us nine planets,” is no longer helpful for remembering the planets names and orders. Someone needs to come up with a new one… perhaps “Moose viruses enter my jowls softly under neck?“

Leave a comment with your best memory-sentence! Quick! Before we all forget their names! Here’s the list to help you: “Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune.”

Zap! Pow! Bang!

It’s been a full, but enjoyable day.  The highlight was Dr. Craig Evans message regarding some of the big issues of pseudo-scholarship out there right now that are getting a lot of press, such as The da Vinci Code, Mike Baigent’s new book, and the Gospel of Judas.  I sat down with Marsha and watched the National Geographic special again, and it struck me even more the way the press are doing playing scholars off one another.  Don’t misunderstand me, I’m so thankful that we are finally seeing a biblical scholar on television who’s views are “mainstream,” but occasionally, the way they play the conservative and liberal off one another reminds me of watching “Crossfire” or “Hardball” with their reactionary, party-line talking points being lobbed back and forth.

There’s one portion of the NatGeo special in which Dr. Evans makes a seemingly rational statement that the Gospel of Judas doesn’t contain historical 1st century tradition.  Then they play a clip of Elaine Pagels which begins, “How does he know?”  She then asserts that, while the texts we have are 3rd-4th century, no one knows when the originals were written, and it’s impossible to know.  The amazing thing about Pagel’s dismissive super-power is that, while disarming her opponent’s argument, it somehow empowers her to make whatever assertions she likes, since nobody really knows.  Perhaps it was aliens?  Perhaps magical gnostic-fairies?  I guess it really depends on what will sell more books this quarter.

All that silliness got my creative juices flowing… or psychosis flowing… and I slapped this together for your giggling pleasure.  Enjoy:

 

 

Leaving South Park

Considering recent discussion about the suitability of parodying religious figures, I found this report to be just too funny.  Isaac Hayes who provides the voice of “Chef” on the animated show “South Park” wants to pack it up and move on to other things.  Why would he desire to leave the show that features regular appearances of Jesus (who is depicted living in a bungalow and runs a cable call-in show, losing boxing bouts with Satan and singing in night clubs with Santa)?  Why would he want to step away from a show who’s Christmas mascot is a talking piece of human excrement?  What madness could make him want to walk away from a program where the main Jewish character struggles to save his baby brother from being “brissed” by his parents, and his Jewish mom is described with a word used of female canines for her moral crusades?  Why would he want to give all that up?

Because of religious intolerance, of course!  Now before you cheer, it must be pointed out that Hayes had no problem with the bashing of Christianity and Judaism over the past decade, but when they aired an episode poking fun at Scientology, that was blatant bigotry!  XenuTV has the episode in question posted on their site, and while it is obviously misrepresenting Scientology (and XenuTV is farcically biased as well), it is certainly no worse than past attacks on other religions (if you consider Scientology a religion).

The difference between a Christian apologist and a Scientology apologist can be summed up in one word: dialogue.  While I, as a Christian apologist, enjoy a healthy dialogue, and discussing the finer points of my faith and theology, especially with critics, Scientologists seems to first label their critics as religious bigots, then try to make their lives difficult, and then sue the ever-lovin’ out of them.  That may be a gross generalization (read “please don’t sue me“), and I admit it is only based on observation of assorted newsgroups, discussion boards, and the like, but that is the image portrayed.  Even the most vocal celebrities (read “Tom Cruise” and “John Travolta“) continually skirt around the central principles of Scientology, and the primary criticisms.

The wonderful thing about the good news of Jesus Christ is that it’s GOOD NEWS!  Good news travels fast, openly, a beacon of light that shines even brighter against the backdrop of error.  I can’t imagine a situation where I wouldn’t want to discuss Christian issues openly and transparently.  It’s unfortunate that many Scientologists don’t seem to share that outlook.