Monday, September 29, 2008

Painting the World Red & Blue

What if the world could vote in America's 2008 presidential election? Thanks to The Economist, now they can ... sort of. The magazine has created a Global Electoral College, modeled after America's own quirky Electoral College system (click here to learn how it works). It doesn't really count for anything, but it's an interesting exercise nonetheless.


So, if you're curious about who Brazil, China, Russia, or India want as the next president of the United States, now's your chance to find out straight from them (also check out the results table). Right now, there's a shocking amount of blue on the map. Voting closes at Midnight London time on November 1, so get out the (world) vote!

Saturday, September 27, 2008

Farewell to Summer

Last Saturday, Heather and I took a day trip to Inner Harbor in Baltimore, MD. It'd probably been close to ten years since I'd been there and she'd never been at all, so we had fun exploring (once again, we confirmed that I'm directionally challenged, so I've officially ceded navigational privileges to Heather). We beat the crowds to the National Aquarium, walked up to Lexington Market for crab cakes at Faidley's, nearly interrupted an ongoing wedding ceremony (c'mon, people, ever heard of ushers?!) at the Baltimore Basilica, and poked around the shops surrounding the harbor. But mostly we just hung out — talking, people-watching, and enjoying the beautiful weather. It really was beautiful — warm and sunny with a light, cool breeze. It was the kind of day that gives me intense cravings for ice cream, apparently — I couldn't stop thinking about it all day ... but we never got any. Oh well. We did stop at Rita's and Starbucks, so I can't complain. All in all, it was the perfect end to a great summer.

Really Simple Syndication

It's come to my attention that some people — *cough* my wife *cough* — remain unfamiliar with the glory that is RSS. RSS stands for Really Simple Syndication, and it's as easy as its name makes it sound. You know that little orange icon that shows up all over the internet? That's the RSS icon, hanging out to let you know you have the option of subscribing to a "feed". Feeds are an easy way to get updates from sources you care about, like news sites or your friends' blogs.

RSS readers take the feeds you're interested in and put them all in one place, saving you the time and hassle of remembering to check each site individually. Think of it like creating your own online newspaper or magazine — you pick the articles, so it only displays the information you want to read (like my blog posts, for example). Personally, I use Google Reader (also check out their gadget for your iGoogle page).

Once you've signed up for Google Reader, just add the feeds that interest you by clicking on the RSS icon and selecting "Add to Google".

To subscribe to this blog, it's actually even easier — I recently added Blogger's "Followers" widget to the sidebar on the right. If you enjoy reading my posts, I'd encourage you to become a follower. Thanks! Enjoy the world of RSS.

Thursday, September 25, 2008

And God's Vote Goes To...

God isn't Democrat, Republican, or even Independent. He doesn't support McCain, Obama, or any one politician's agenda. He's isn't swayed by Biden's Catholic background or excited about Palin's conservative credentials. God simply hasn't blessed any political party or agenda with His stamp of approval.

Despite that fact, many Christians seem to have sworn allegiance to one political party or another and, sadly, often turn on fellow believers who sympathize with or (God forbid) support the opposing party. I'm not sure how or when these battle lines were drawn. Perhaps it's rooted in the "culture wars" between "conservatives" and "liberals". Perhaps it's fueled by differing personal convictions or political priorities. Frankly, I don't care much what your reason is — there simply isn't a valid excuse to cannibalize the body of Christ. Christians are to be known by their love for one another, are they not? Surely a civil dialogue is possible. And surely Christ's followers possess the wisdom and humility to participate in politics that transcends partisanship. No one is perfect, yet grace is sufficient for all. Amen? By all means, please participate in politics. But your Savior is not a Republican or a Democrat, and He will not rise from, or descend on, Capitol Hill.

That said, God isn't necessarily neutral on the issues. But His priorities are clear. Jesus never singled out abortion or gay marriage as "fundamental issues". Is God pro-life? Absolutely — in a far broader sense than the best of us. Does God call homosexuality a sin? Yes, He does — but it's just one sin among many. In fact, as far as we know, Jesus never mentioned abortion or homosexuality during his ministry on earth. But he did make it a point to rip the self-righteous hypocrites a new one and come down hard on consumerism (also, Mark 10) and self-interest. When directly asked to name the fundamental issues he replied: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind...[and] Love your neighbor as yourself." Then he showed the world how it's done by dedicating his time on earth to caring for the sick, the poor, the outcasts, and sinners. Stop right now and read Matthew 25:31-46. That's how Jesus says individuals will be judged — not by whether they voted Republican or Democrat, but by whether they cared enough to act on behalf of the least of these. James 1:27 explains that religion God accepts as pure and faultless is "to look after orphans and widows in their distress". Are these the issues and causes that get us fired up? Are we humble? Selfless? Loving? Giving? I'm not saying abortion and gay marriage don't matter; I'm just pointing out that, even from a purely Biblical viewpoint, they aren't the only issues to consider when casting your vote — nor are they even the most important.

Blind loyalty to a political party isn't an option for Christians. Nor is one- or two-issue voting. As election day approaches, do your research with open eyes and a critical mind.

Faithful citizenship doesn't hinge on allegiance to a political party. God's not impressed by "American values" or "conservative" political views — He's righteous, not right-wing. So let not the American citizen boast in his citizenship, or the Christian voter boast in his vote, but let him who boasts boast about this: that he understands and knows the God who isn't partisan, who judges all men, and rules every nation, tribe, and tongue. Do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with Him.

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

God Isn't Even American

God doesn't support America's national interests. He doesn't fight on America's side, and America has no special claim to God's blessing or protection. Americans are not God's chosen people, and American patriotism isn't a Biblical value. It's time to set the record straight.

America isn't a Christian nation. America was founded during a time when nearly everyone in the Western world believed in the God of the Bible, at least His existence, and early America was settled and shaped by religious, God-fearing people, many of them Christians. Therefore, God, the Bible, and religion featured prominently in the personal language of our Founding Fathers and influenced the laws set forth in the documents that govern our nation. There is no question that the basic principles of this country are strongly informed by Judeo-Christian ethics and the gospel of Jesus Christ. America wouldn't be the nation we know today were it not for its Christian heritage. That said, the Founders intentionally crafted the documents that govern our nation to prevent government from establishing a national religion or exercising any form of religious intolerance. In this representative democracy, everyone's voice must be respected; the majority may rule, but they never have the right to tyrannize the minority. Even this openly tolerant Constitutional principle is informed by Scripture: it acknowledges the truth that all people have equal value and promotes Christ's command to love your neighbor (even your political or religious enemies) — despite individual differences.

So, while you may (rightly) argue that America has a Christian heritage, or (accurately) suggest that America used to be a "nation of Christians" in the sense that, at one time in history, nearly every American citizen professed some form of Christian faith, the fact remains that this country has never been officially Christian in policy, practice, fact, or intent. There's certainly nothing inherently Christian about a democratic government or capitalist economy. America has only ever been as Christian as its people. If America has become "less Christian" over the decades, you'll find it's because a smaller percentage of its citizens call themselves Christian, and even fewer of those practice what they profess. This isn't a trend you can (or should) reverse with legislation.

From another angle, Christians should bear in mind that America came to exist through rebellion and selfish defiance (however heroic and eloquently justified) and, since then, many of our dealings have fallen far short of anything remotely Christ-like. Examine our history (our treatment of Native Americans, our oppression of women, our support of slavery, our racism against Japanese citizens during WWII and against African Americans and Hispanics even still) or our current affairs (our deplorable stewardship, our neglect of the poor, our national arrogance — to say nothing of the greed and self-interest that fuel the political and economic engines that drive the country). Do followers of Jesus really want this country representing Christianity to the world? Make no mistake, this is a great nation and I'm thankful for it. But God's not an American. Personally, I'd prefer it if the name of Christ and the reputation of His followers wasn't automatically on the line for every action of these United States.

Monday, September 15, 2008

A Few Steps Closer to Minority Report

Remember all the crazy-awesome sci-fi gadgetry in 2002's Minority Report? Stuff like electronic ink and paper, multi-touch computers, advertisements that read your eyes, and cars that pilot themselves? All increasingly real. I'm not sure if my geeky self is excited or horrified. Probably both.

Friday, September 12, 2008

Obama vs. McCain

I don't really care who you're voting for in November. What I want to know is why. Have you weighed the issues? Really? Or has your ability to make an informed decision been hijacked by partisan bias and seductive soundbites?

You see, there's a problem with today's American political system — there are only two viable political parties (despite the drop-in-the-bucket efforts of independents). This effectively frees the two opposing candidates from any real obligation to win over the American people. Instead, all a presidential candidate needs to do to succeed is turn the American people against his opponent. It's either/or, so the seemingly less evil candidate triumphs by default.

Since the candidates don't have to clearly outline their strengths, weaknesses, positions, or plans in an effort to win your vote (instead they'll use illogical promises and inspirational rhetoric to blow smoke up your backside), we're left to educate ourselves as best we can. Here, your sources matter. If you get your information exclusively from Rush Limbaugh and Fox News you're probably convinced that McCain can do no wrong and Barack Obama is a secret Muslim in league with terrorists. If you only watch John Stewart and MSNBC, you probably drank Obama's kool-aid months ago and think McCain is Bush the Third. A balanced diet is essential. If you don't listen to both sides you'll never see the bigger picture, never understand the nuances, and ultimately make an ill-informed, emotionally-charged decision that, post-election, will leave you with a smug grin and unrealistic, overoptimistic expectations (should your candidate win) or a bitter attitude and unfounded, apocalyptic thoughts (should he lose). The truth is, neither candidate is that bad ... and neither is that great. Don't take my word for it, though. Do your own research.

One great resource is The Undecided Voter's Guide to the Next President from HarperCollins. Browse the complete text or use the search tool to find a comprehensive rundown on McCain (pgs. 48 – 92), Obama (pgs. 281 – 326), and even Biden (pgs. 329 – 336). Palin, never a candidate for president, is mentioned just once in the section on Hillary (p. 227). Other great nonpartisan resources are USAVoter and the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. Bookmark them and return often. Then, check out these other sites for more information:

Learn about the Democrats
Learn about the Republicans
Learn about Obama
Learn about McCain
Learn about Biden
Learn about Palin
Overwhelmed? To help clarify things a little, often it's best to hear the candidates speak for themselves. If you haven't already, watch the videos from the civil forum on faith hosted by Rick Warren of Saddleback Church (or read the transcripts — you can find a decent side-by-side comparison of the candidates answers here). Whatever you do, don't miss the presidential and vice-presidential debates (tip: keep an open mind as you listen, and don't listen to any pre- or post-debate commentary). Personally, I'm withholding a final voting decision until after I've heard McCain and Obama discuss the issues on live TV (here's the debate schedule; if you miss the live broadcasts, you should be able to find on-demand playback at the new website MyDebates). Finally, your most important resources are probably truth-sniffing sites like Snopes, FactCheck, and Regret the Error.

In the end, careful investigation (or a night spent watching Comedy Central shows on Hulu) will reveal that both McCain and Obama are flawed individuals with some flawed ideas. If you find yourself automatically rushing to "your candidate's" defense, fess up — you're biased. And before you become too critical of "the other candidate", please note that a careful look in the mirror (or a short conversation with an honest friend) will reveal that you're also imperfect. Surprise! We're all human. My point is, whatever your ideals, you'll need to compromise on some issues to endorse either candidate. And compromise in our democratic political system is okay; indeed, it's essential. There will never be a perfect candidate. It's up to us, to the best of our meager abilities, to determine who is best suited for the job. As you weigh the issues and sift through the propaganda, please exercise wisdom, discernment, and humility. And, always — always — consider the possibility that you're mistaken.

Wednesday, September 10, 2008

Environmentalist Role Reversal

Riddle me this:

Concern for the environment — indeed, the entire environmentalist movement — is traditionally associated with "left-wing" "liberals" and naturalists, who often come under attack from "right-wing" "conservatives" and creationists as "treehuggers" with mixed-up priorities. This strikes me as a profound mystery.

Remember the part in Darwin's Theory of Evolution about Natural Selection (sometimes referred to as Survival of the Fittest)? Let's take a second and reconcile a belief in that process with, say, the Endangered Species Act. If you believe that life sprung from nothing and has progressed from nonliving matter to isolated cells and all the way to human civilization through the forces of random chance (beneficial, heritable mutations) and natural selection (better-equipped, increasingly dominant species directly or indirectly pushing less fit species toward extinction), why would you argue for human intervention when increasing human dominance threatens other species? Why should you care if the polar bear or spotted owl lives or dies? Isn't that just part of the process? Surely, if we're part of this whole natural system, then all our actions — including pollution, waste, ecological destruction, etc. — must be considered just as natural as the actions of an ape, squirrel, or flea. By what standard can they be condemned? (Before you're tempted to argue for humanity's unique power or responsibility, please consider that suggesting such things comes dangerously close to skewering the naturalist premise of your beliefs. To be consistent, man cannot be set apart or held to a higher standard.) But, if our natural actions, contrary to the natural actions of every other creature on earth, lead inexorably to the complete destruction of the planet, I must ask, how did we get to be so different?

On the flip side, if you believe God created every living thing after its own kind to work in harmony as parts of complete, complex ecosystems that by their very existence glorify God ... where do you get off not caring about the planet? Especially when your Bible says that God specifically put man on earth to take care of it. Don't give me any weak rationalizations about "having dominion" or "subduing the earth" — those verses are clearly about stewardship (everything is created "by him and for him", right?). And while you may be Biblically correct in asserting that caring for people is a higher priority than caring for animals or trees, your God asks you to do both. Whatever you do, don't shrug the whole thing off with "the whole world's going to be destroyed anyway" as if the approaching Apocalypse somehow nullifies the commands of your God (see 2 Peter 3:11). Note that He never condones selfishness or wastefulness. If you truly believe you'll one day give an account to Him, you'd better start caring about His creation — all of it.

Just some things for us to think about.

Friday, September 5, 2008

Twisting Our Native Tongue

As I've mentioned before, I'm amused by Engrish, Chinglish, and all their variants. Hearing a Japanese man go on about "a big erection" when he's trying to say "election" is pretty hysterical. But as a writer, editor, and communications professional who's married to an English major, I'm troubled by the rather bleak future Wired Magazine predicts for my dear native language. To me, Engrish is funny because it's wrong; it's misused. But in the future, what happens if phrases like "Our goalie not here yet, so give chance, can or not?" stop being wrong? Will my proficiency in the English language matter anymore? Will American schools start teaching Panglish? Is English destined to be the next Latin? Either way, as a vocab and grammar geek, the thought of butchered phrases, mispronunciations, and non-words going mainstream kind of breaks my heart.

(For the record, I just had a vision of myself 60 years from now as a persnickety old guy who amuses himself by laughing derisively at all the "ignorant kids" and their "nonsensical babble". Meh. Could be fun. Perhaps the future's not so bad...)

Tuesday, September 2, 2008

Chrome: The Shiny New Browser from Google

Google accidentally let the cat out of the bag a day early, unveiling a comic strip about their new web browser project, Chrome, to be released later today. (When it's released, you should be able to download it here).

TechCrunch has already suggested the open-source browser will kick-start the rapid decline of Microsoft and herald a future of OS-free computing. We'll see. Google Chrome definitely steals Microsoft's thunder over the beta 2 version of it's new IE8.

My only fear is that Chrome will inadvertently steal the market from Google's longtime ally, Mozilla's Firefox. That would be unfortunate. I love and highly recommend the Firefox browser. That said, I'm eager to test this new contender.

UPDATE: Friday, September 19, 2008
Sticking with Firefox

Honestly, Google's Chrome browser hasn't wowed me. There's no contesting that what they've put under the hood represents a few game-changing innovations, but since I'm not a developer, many of the coolest bells and whistles are largely lost on me. Sure, the simplicity of the interface has a certain appeal, and I enjoy smart features like the new tab window. But as a user, I miss certain basic features like...oh, a print button. I also miss the familiarity — and custom add-ons — that make Mozilla's Firefox 3 such a user-friendly treat. Now, I don't want to argue about which browser is better — there are plenty of worthy choices (although, if you use Internet Explorer, do yourself a favor and ditch it). Ultimately, you like what you like. I happen to like Firefox...used in conjunction, of course, with a whole slew of Google Apps — from iGoogle and Gmail to Google Reader, Google Docs, Picasa, and beyond. Maybe one day some future version of Google's browser will win me over as well. Until that time...

Monday, September 1, 2008

Creating a Sustainable Future (Facing the Energy Crisis: Part 3)

Fossil fuels are on their way out whether we like it or not. Which, in the end, is fine — over time, the human race can adapt to survive without oil and coal, especially if we begin changing our lifestyles and developing solutions today.

But not just any solutions will do. If the energy crisis teaches us anything, and I hope it teaches us much, it must teach us the importance of sustainability. As we wean ourselves from dirty, dead-end fossil fuels, we must be careful not to develop new dependencies that could lead to other crises further down the road. Our efforts at sustainability must extend far beyond energy to include the atmosphere, oceans, freshwater (Wired had a great article a while back about the threat of freshwater shortages), architecture, materials, waste, food, and, indeed, all natural resources and processes. Bottom line: it's time for a little creative problem solving.

Recently, both presidential candidates have taken this task a little more seriously, although their lofty campaign rhetoric still contains significant traces of fantasy and foolishness. Private investors (doubtless you've heard of the Pickens Plan), auto manufacturers, and even Big Oil companies all have their ideas about what to do. Although I don't consider Al Gore to be entirely credible (was that a Nobel prize for hypocrisy...?), his We Can Solve It campaign is very well intentioned, and his "plan" to convert 100% of America's energy into clean energy in 10 years (although probably unrealistic and prohibitively expensive) is just the kind of go-for-broke effort this country needs.

Here's where we should start:

Encourage U.S. Innovation. In Part 2, I suggested a carbon tax as a way to make fossil fuel use unattractive. But there's another side to that coin: the more undesirable gas-powered transportation and coal-fired electricity (i.e., the status quo) become, the more desirable the alternatives seem. This throws the doors wide open for innovation. With the appropriate disincentives, it shouldn't be long before Americans scramble to change their personal habits and fight to adopt emerging carbon-neutral innovations. New business innovations will blossom as manufacturers begin competing for customers looking for the most efficient, carbon-neutral products available. Almost immediately, the competition inherent within our capitalist system starts working to propel desirable change. A revenue-neutral carbon tax must be the foundation of any serious energy plan.

Additional incentives may play a role from time to time. For example, it could be helpful to offer government "prize money" for demonstrating certain cost-effective breakthrough innovations in energy and efficiency, similar to McCain's (unbelievably extravagant) $300 million incentive for an exponentially better electric car battery.

Stop Using Corn-based Ethanol as Auto Fuel. Immediately. There's probably a future in biofuels of other sorts (e.g., biodiesel), so encourage research in this field. But corn-based ethanol is a government-funded failure. It might burn somewhat cleaner (even that is questionable), but it's not cost-effective, or remotely sensible. Food prices are escalating and half the world is starving, so let's maybe boost our exports and feed people instead of liquidating food supplies by turning them into inefficient oil alternatives.

Invest in Wind & Solar. (Same goes for hydrogen fuel and other, more experimental energy sources.) Remove all current fossil fuel subsidies and use the money to subsidize sustainable energy development and production instead. Encourage private investment, research, and development, but as a rule, don't dump government money into any unproven or underdeveloped technologies. Wind and solar offer fantastic potential as renewable fuel sources, but they're still not efficient or cost-effective enough to provide broad-scale alternative energy. Besides, weather-dependent energy production brings it's own set of challenges (some companies are already rising to meet those). That said, we can't be afraid to adopt new technologies as they emerge (and private investors like Pickens should be encouraged and supported in their efforts). Expect innovations in these fields, and work to integrate them quickly.

Take Full Advantage of Geothermal & Hydropower. These are great natural, sustainable energy sources. Whenever available and wherever possible, we should tap into them. We already know how. Also, the huge potential of tidal power remains largely unexplored.

Start Relying More on Nuclear Energy. New nuclear plants have to be a huge part of any serious clean energy plan. Nuclear plants currently supply only about 20% of U.S. electricity, yet nuclear energy is arguably the safest, most reliable, sustainable, cost-effective method of energy production in the world ... with a tiny carbon footprint. This is proven technology. It's time we stopped being afraid of it. Especially since nuclear "waste" is close to 100% recyclable (see France and the U.K.). Future innovations in this field (e.g., fusion research) are bound to bring even greater efficiency. Still not convinced? Talk to former Greenpeace pioneer-turned-nuclear energy advocate Patrick Moore.

Decrease Wastefulness & Inefficiency. Finally, one of the most obvious (and increasingly necessary) ways to relieve the U.S. energy crisis (and save ourselves a load of money) is to use less energy. As they say, waste not, want not. Consider this: Americans use five times more than the average world citizen. That's right — although we represent just 5% of the world's population, we use nearly a quarter of the world's energy. Even the average homeless American has a carbon footprint twice the size of the world average. Researchers from MIT suggest we can cut fuel consumption 50 percent in 25 years. That seems reasonable — in theory, it shouldn't be hard for us to scale back even more than that. In practice, however, the greedy, selfish, lazy part of our human natures often needs a bit of a nudge to stir us from complacency.

Here, a carbon tax will certainly help. But in some cases, more new taxes and restrictions may also serve to influence citizens' and corporations behavior for the better.

One place to start would be taxing the manufacturing and sale of new vehicles and appliances that do not conform to strict efficiency and emissions standards (used vehicles/appliances would be exempt). This would discourage people from buying (and manufacturers from making) certain models. Odds are, every new car will be a hybrid in 12 years anyway. Another idea, provided that there's sufficient public transportation available, is banning cars that don't have special permits (e.g. fuel-efficient taxis, emergency vehicles, etc.) from within city limits — encouraging walking, cycling, subway trains, etc. as energy-saving alternatives. We could even go so far as to outlaw certain vehicles for private or recreational use (always providing exceptions for demonstrated business needs). Some of these measures sound extreme, but they're all worth looking into.

On a more simple, personal level, it's time to evaluate our lifestyles. Simplify. Reduce. Reuse. Recycle. We have to be part of the change we're hoping for. It won't be easy. It won't be without cost. But it's within our reach.

Additional Reading:
Part 1 — Making Sense
Part 2 — Treating Fossil Fuels with Foresight