Well if you ask me...

I Want my 99 cents back

I am a theist but I believe wholeheartedly that our universe was created in a big bang and has evolved over billions of years. I also have no reason to question the current scientific consensus that all life on this planet evolved from a common ancestor over the last several billion years. As a matter of fact, I find the whole idea of evolution to be an incredible example of our Creator’s omnipotence.

So when I found myself on an app downloading spree a few weeks ago I decided to purchase an app titled “Evolution Debater” for my iPad. I thought I might use it and I thought it would be nice to support the developer.

A few days ago I tried it for the first time and I was very disappointed. I develop apps myself so I would normally not complain about an app which cost me only 99 cents but this app is different. It made me angry. Since I am going to complain anyway, I’ll write a quick review.

Overview

The app is a simple collection of questions about evolution and answers in support of evolutionary theories. According to the developer “it is meant to help teach others about evolution and help in debates in favor of evolution.”

The Good

1. The answers to most of the questions are, in my opinion, very solid.
2. Only $0.99 for iPad, free for iPhone.
3. Fair treatment of intelligent design. I am not really a supporter of the ID “movement” but I like to see fair treatment.

The Bad

1. There only 26 questions listed and one could argue that one does not belong.
2. The app has a few typos – I am sure this post does too.

This translates to low value in my book. Compare this to my last iPhone/iPad project to see what you can get for $0.99.

The Ugly

Almost dead center among the “questions” is something which reads “Unfulfilled Prophecy.” Tapping on it reveals an “answer” that begins with “The Bible misinterprets its own prophecies” and then goes on in an attempt to discredit the “alleged Word of God.”

I really wouldn’t mind if someone wanted to have an open debate on these issues but I was furious that someone would stick that in there. We have enough problems with Christians fighting amongst themselves over ridiculous assertions about “creation science” – we don’t need this.

I want my 99 cents back!

What I Learned in 2010

I learned a few things during 2010. Here are just four …

Things Aren’t Always As They Seem

No matter how things appear, the reality may be much different. While you are enjoying your life, that reality might just unexpectedly rear its head and smack you silly. And speaking of enjoying life …

Life Is Hard

Terri and I used to talk about how wonderful our lives were. So many people struggle with so many things and we’ve always been so blessed. This year I have seen first hand some of the difficulties other people face. We are still blessed in a big way but I understand better now what people deal with.

I Need to Play More Video Games

I stopped playing video games regularly about twenty years ago. Since then video games have been mostly a family event. One of my projects this year reminded me that I enjoy playing certain types of games. So I am playing again.

My Kids Are Growing Up

This is the hardest lesson I learned all year.

Billy is young for a senior so everything hit us at once. He spent six weeks in Germany as an exchange student. He went to England by himself for his interviews at Oxford. He has his own work, drives everywhere by himself, and all of a sudden he is an adult. We were looking through our photo library the other day and I couldn’t get past all the photos of Billy from just the last few years where he still looks like a little boy. That boy is now a young man.

When I began writing this, Becky was making me a birthday cheesecake from scratch all by herself. She also made almost all of our Christmas cookies by herself this year. She makes dinner for the family from time to time and yesterday she was teaching me how to do something in Photoshop. She is growing into a brilliant and beautiful young woman.

The cheesecake was wonderful, by the way.

Why I Call Myself A Libertarian Socialist – Part One

In my last post I explained why I changed my political views on Facebook. Today I am going to begin the whole story.

First I’ll start with the short answer – I call myself a libertarian socialist because I don’t know what other label fits me better.

I started to take an interest in politics when I was in seventh grade. Reagan was challenging Carter in the presidential race and that was an interesting race from my perspective. My parents were new Christians who had always voted for Democrats and they were going to vote for Carter a second time. Not only was he a Democrat, but he was born again.

I had just enrolled in a very conservative Christian school and we were being taught that Reagan was the right man for the job because he best represented the principles we read in Scripture. I remember discussing this with my parents and as far as I know they decided to vote for Reagan because of this. We were all convinced he was the right man for the job.

Before I get away from this topic I should point out a few things. One, though I have tremendous respect for President Carter, I still think Reagan did a better job than Carter would have. Two, though I may feel “duped” into voting for someone on false pretenses, I did learn a valuable lesson – one should vote based on the issues, not the religion of the candidate.

As I continued to study politics I became convinced that the root of everything bad in the world was government. More government, more problems. In my mind, our country was a success because our government was intentionally crafted to protect its citizens from itself. When I was old enough to vote I registered Republican because I believed they supported smaller government.

Over the next few years, I learned a few things about life and politics:

1. Democrats and Republicans – same people in different costumes.
2. Government is not THE problem – oppression is.
3. Americans have, in my opinion, confused liberty with individualism.

As a result, I have a much different view on American politics. I’m sure you can’t wait to learn more. Stay tuned.

Why I Changed My Political Views on Facebook

About six months ago, I decided to change my “Political Views” on Facebook from Libertarian to Libertarian Socialist. Watching the social network last week got me thinking about this again – so I changed it. What follows is my attempt to explain why – as briefly as I know how.

I labeled myself a libertarian almost twenty years ago. Even at that time there were two kinds of libertarians – traditional libertarians and the right-leaning variety popular in the U.S. Since neither was very popular in my circles at the time, I simply explained to my friends that I was a libertarian without the capital L. That was my way of disassociating with the hyper-capitalists.

The term “libertarian” is now becoming synonymous with the “tea party” in this country. Unfortunately, the tea party movement and others like it are anything but libertarian. It has now become necessary to make a stronger distinction. I’ve written about the tea party before and I don’t want to be associated with them in any way.

I know some of you are going to be thoroughly confused that I would choose to “admit” to being a socialist in order to avoid being labeled a “hyper capitalist” since most people equate socialism with state-socialism. In addition, libertarian socialists disagree on a great deal of important issues. I welcome that ambiguity. I am just growing tired of being labeled “one of those tea party guys.”

Stay tuned. This post actually grew into a series of posts which I will publish in the coming weeks.

Two Cents Each – 10/4/2010

Does this loop ever end? (Scripting News)

I could not agree more. Closed will never win.

Church Marketing Sucks: Thou Shall Twitter in Church

I don’t have a problem with Twittering in church as much as I do Twittering while in the company of others and while one should be listening and meditating. On the other hand, sharing something does help make it real. I would not be against using Twitter during church as long as I knew it wasn’t a distraction from why I am there – which could easily be the case I think.

Conan O’Brien and Jack White Record Live Album – Spinner

Who wouldn’t buy this?

Seth’s Blog: Hourly work vs. linchpin work

“That’s quite an hourly wage. It’s also quite a bargain.” Very well said.

Rands In Repose: How to Write a Book

Must read for anyone who would like to right a book.

This is a news website article about a scientific finding

This is one of the funniest things I’ve read in a long time. Bravo!

Don’t Listen To Stupid People

Could not agree more!

You’re Not an Entrepreneur

“I do not think it means what you think it means.” Great stuff!

Resistance is Futile

After years of resistance, I’ve decided it’s time to relent. I am now using Gmail’s web interface for most of my email reading. I’ve used web based interfaces for email before, of course, but I never thought using one all the time made as much sense as using a desktop client. I’ve slowly changed my mind.

If you want to skip to the good stuff, I threw together a rough little Python script that build what I think are useful bookmarklets to use with Gmail. See “Gmail Smart Reply Folders” to learn more about that. If you are interested in my rationale for switching, read on.

I signed up for a Gmail account on May 20, 2004 and have used it every day since. In those days I was still using Mutt as my mail client. I used it to read email for my main email address and several project related aliases. I used my Gmail account mostly for family members and mailing lists.

Eventually, I decided to configure Mail.app for Mac and use Mutt or a web interface when I was using Linux or Windows¹. Mail.app is not a great mail client but I love the OS integration.

In late 2007, Google introduced IMAP support for Gmail. Though Gmail’s implementation was, and is, flawed, this was a step in the right direction. I immediately configured Mail.app for my Gmail account and I assumed I was free of the web interface for good.

In early 2008, I discovered Google Apps and I was very impressed. I was administering an Exchange server at the time, and I decided to switch over to Google Apps immediately. I also decided to move my personal email domain. Now Gmail was doing all the heavy lifting and I had reliable (albeit flawed) IMAP email for all of my accounts.

A few months later, Gmail introduced keyboard shortcuts. One of the things I missed most about Mutt was the old school *nix style keyboard shortcuts. I had configured Mail.app with some keyboard shortcuts but it was never the same. Now the web interface was starting to grow on me.

The last two hurdles were OS integration and dragging to attach files². Though I am certainly more of a keyboard user, attaching files to emails always seemed like one of those tasks for which the mouse was designed. When Google added the drag to attach functionality earlier this year, I realized it was time to rethink my position on web based email.

NOTES:

1. I used Outlook and Entourage when I had to for access to Exchange. I played with Thunderbird a bit but never stuck with it.
2. Many people stayed away from web based email in the early years because of accessibility. This was never an issue for me. I only check my email a couple times a day and I’ve used an almost-all-the-time, very fast connection to the Internet for many years.
3. I came up with what I thought was a cute title for this post, but I quickly learned it was not as original as I thought – I’d Rather Switch Than Fight. It is even a song! </ol>

The Best Fragging Deal on iPhone and iPod Touch

Some time ago, someone asked me to participate in an exciting project.

Now, more than eighteen months later, I can tell all of you about it.

The project was to create a full featured multiplayer first person shooter for iPhone and iPod touch – and it is now available on the App Store.

If you are interested in my work, you can learn more about my part over here(link dead now). If you just want to get straight to the iPwnage, go download the game now – low price, no gimmicks, no tricks.

UPDATE: Since the link above is now dead, I wanted to detail what I did for this project.

• Built a self-scaling architecture to handle load for millions of players. AWS now provides a lot of this functionality as a part of their offering, but they did not at this time.
• Built a system for tracking ll player scoring and achievements. Apple had not yet released Game Center so we didn’t have that option either.
• Built the match-making system which matched players to other players in the same part of the world and with similar rankings.
• Built all of the in-game menus.
• Designed and implemented all database schema.

Tea Partiers Almost All White – So What?

Dennis Prager wrote a piece for National Review Online entitled Race and the Tea Parties (April 27, 2010) and it is about as wrong as I’ve read in a long time.

He starts out with this

Opponents of the popular expression of conservative opposition to big government — the tea-party movement — regularly note that tea partiers are overwhelmingly white. This is intended to disqualify the tea parties from serious moral consideration.

Typical straw man argument. He tells us why people have pointed this out and then shows how wrong that motivation is. He doesn’t waste one sentence, however, proving this motivation. He simply assumes it.

And it gets better …

The fact that the Left believes that the preponderance of whites among tea partiers invalidates the tea-party movement tells us much more about the Left than it does about the tea partiers.

Where is the evidence that “the Left” believes any such thing. I’ll grant him that the race of the group should be considered when evaluating some of its opinions – but certainly not all – as should gender and class. His disagreement with that indicates how much he has lost touch with reality. I’ll return to this later.

He goes on to say …

One would hope that all people would assess ideas by their moral rightness or wrongness, not by the race, gender, or class of those who hold them.

I could not agree more.

But in the world of the Left, people are taught not to assess ideas but to identify the race, class, and gender of those who espouse those ideas.

The “world of the Left?” Is this really what people are being taught? I could easily make similar assertions of the Right with nothing to back up my claims.

This helps explain the widespread use of ad hominem attacks by the Left: Rather than argue against their opponents’ ideas, the Left usually dismisses those making an argument with which it disagrees as “racist,” “intolerant,” “bigoted,” “sexist,” ”homophobic,” “xenophobic,” and/or “homophobic.”

Two things are going on here.

First, he is making the assumption that pointing out that tea partiers are mostly white is always an attempt to invalidate all of its arguments. This is simply not the case.

Second, he is ignoring any valid reason for pointing out these biases. When a particular group espouses an idea that is inherently racist or sexist, I have every right to point that out. Much of the rhetoric out of the tea party camp is clearly racist. I don’t call the tea partiers racist to invalidate their ideas. Their ideas are racist and that makes those ideas wrong. Why is this not clear?

To prove my point I am going to say something I might regret. I may agree with some of the ideas held by the tea party. I don’t, however, agree with all their ideas because they are racist – some of the ideas, not the people. Just because some of the members, or all of them, are racist does not make their valid ideas automatically invalid. The racist, and sexist, ideas are invalid – because they are racist and/or sexist. Is there something wrong with pointing that out.

He gives another example …

This is why, to cite another example, men are dismissed when they oppose abortion. The idea is far less significant than the sex of the advocate. As for women who oppose abortion on demand, they are either not authentically female or simply traitors to their sex. Just as the Left depicts blacks who oppose race-based affirmative action as not authentic blacks or as traitors to their race.

Is it just me or is that paragraph simply a list of assertions with no foundation.

And, of course, he brings up the issue of abortion. In this case, I’m glad because this is a great example of what I said I’d return to. There are two issues to consider here – abortion, and a woman’s right to choose. I know opponents of choice don’t like to look at it this way but the issues are different. A man has the same right as a woman to hold a valid opinion on both issues, BUT his opinion on the matter of choice, because he will never have to make that choice, does not carry as much weight as the opinion of a woman.

Prager finishes his first point with …

In this morally inverted world, the virtual absence of blacks and minorities from tea-party rallies cannot possibly reflect anything negative on the blacks and minorities’ absence, only on the white tea partiers’ presence.

Okay, this is a very good point. The virtual absence of minorities does not necessarily indicate that the party is inherently racist, but it might. Members of the tea party should take a serious look at their ideas. Perhaps the absence of minorities does indicate a problem with the party itself.

He finishes with a second point that sounds suspiciously like the first so I won’t get into that.

One final thing bothers me about his article. Two days before his article, another article entitled Imagine: Protest, Insurgency and the Workings of White Privilege was wildly popular online. I don’t see any reference to this article by Prager but I have to assume he had seen it. Anyone writing on the subject would have seen it. If he had not seen it, he can contact me and I’ll make a note here.

Assuming he had seen it, he makes no attempt to address it. What if the tea party were predominantly black, or muslim? Would they be allowed to storm Washington in protest? This is a matter for serious consideration. The fact that he ignores it in his piece is telling.

If you ask me.

Two Cents Each – 4/26/2010

Alex Payne — How I Use TextMate

TextMate is my second favorite editor – after vim of course – and I love the bundles.

The Medium – Beep! – NYTimes.com

A fun read about a great sound and a great word.

Amazon: You Need To Change Your Idiotic Customer Reviews Policy Right Now

I don’t like that some authors withhold the Kindle version, but this is not the appropriate way to respond.

Shut Up & Bring It | Talking Points Memo

Yeah!

Constitutionality of Mandatory Insurance

The new health care reform signed into law is not unconstitutional. It might not be perfect, it might not even be good, but it’s constitutional.

UnMarketing » Blog Archive » How to lose friends and tick off people on FaceBook

Wow! What a riot. Read this if you use Facebook and you’d like a good laugh.

Incredible Izzo Again Defies Odds

Another great post about math and sports. I love it.

‘Grrrr’ Means Many Things in Dog Speak | LiveScience

“Even though the humans and their scientific equipment couldn’t tell the difference, though, it seemed the dogs could.”</p>

Fascinating.</dd>

Series: Why Did Jesus Come? « – Thinking Christian

“in view of the Old Testament context from which he was quoting, it appears he is calling on oppressors to free those they are holding down unjustly. He came to liberate us from our own failings, and to call us to pass that blessing along by liberating others where we have power to do so.”</p>

Jesus spoke for just a few moment and decided to read from Isaiah 61:1. That should make us think twice about a few things.</dd>

One sandwich to kill you all

This is one of the funniest pieces I have read in a very long time. You will not be disappointed if you take the time to read the whole thing.

A New Kind of Starting Pitcher? – Freakonomics Blog – NYTimes.com

A fresh interesting idea but I don’t see it catching on – see resistance number six – but I’ve watched some teams that would have probably benefited from this.</dl>

That’s For Everything Else

It’s Called DOS

It Seems Diplomacy Has Failed

A much better film than I expected but not worth my time to review.

Faith is About Doing

I discovered Have A Little Faith quite accidentally and I enjoyed it very much. It is not the kind of book I would normally read and certainly not the kind I would buy – but I did both.

I was very interested in the 10 Million Words project (which incidentally ended just today – how weird is that?) and I wanted to see if I could follow along. I knew I would not be able to read all the books so I made the decision to start small. My goal was to read or listen to each of the books that made it to to number one or number two on the list. If I was ever caught up, I’d try “number threes” and so on.

I even set up a web page to help me keep track of which books to read.

Anyway, one day I as at the local bookstore and decided to start on a couple of books – two I would buy but I figured I could read this little book before I left the store. It was clear before I was finished the first dozen pages that I’d want to own the book so I decided to take it home with me.

Other reviewers call this a story about two men and their faith but it is really a story about three men – the author, an agnostic with a religious Jewish upbringing; his former Rabbi, who has asked the author to deliver his eulogy; and a former drug dealer, now a Christian minister working among the homeless in Detroit.

There are many lessons one might learn from this very small book. The greatest, in my opinion, is that our faith should not be what divides us – it should be what unites us. We’ve all grown up in a world where our religions alienate us from one another and that shouldn’t be. I’m not talking about conceding the major tenets of one’s faith and agreeing that all religions are equally accurate about the meaning of our existence, etc. I’m talking about working together despite those differences.

If you are suspicious of these popular, feel-good, miracle stories; don’t let that stop you from reading this book. Read it – you’ll be glad you did.

In any case, it won’t take long for you to read and prove me wrong.

Danny isn’t here, Mrs. Torrance.

Like most of Kubrick’s films, The Shining is a masterpiece. The film is classic Kubrick – wide symetrical shots, vivid colors, contorted faces of our main characters – and I could watch it over and over again.

It is not very true to the original story but it is terrifying nonetheless. It is the story of Jack Torrence, a failed writer who takes a job as the winter caretaker at the Overlook Hotel in order to focus on his writing. The book portrays a likable buy who is driven mad by the demons haunt the empty halls at the hotel. The movie, on the other hand, tells a story of a different man. Movie Jack is very unlikable from the beginning and appears to be at least half way to insane from the beginning. Jack Nicholson’s portrayal of this unlikable guy – that’s a stretch, huh? – is brilliant.

Shelley Duvall is wildly believable in her role. She does her best to be a sweet supportive wife to this nutcase though he frequently hurls insults and profanity at her. Meanwhile, their son Danny rides his big wheel around the hotel, chats with his imaginary friend Tony, and sees visions of death and destruction. Now that I think about it, the whole family is nuts before they head off on this “adventure.”

Danny’s big wheel rides provide some of the best shots in the film. Kubrick’s use of sound, parallel lines, and movement in these scenes is stunning. They also are a classic example of a technique he uses all the time – long shots from the character’s point of view. Another classic example of this is the chase scene near the end of the film.

The only shots that rival the riding scenes are those of Danny’s and Jack’s visions (if that is what they are). The two creepy little girls, the room filling with blood, and the ball room scenes are tremendous. And, of course, like every other Kubrick film we have a shot in the bathroom – and this one is about as freaky as they come.

I’m sure you’ve seen it – see it again.

P.S. This last viewing was with my son who had not yet seen it. I did not realize at the time that the HD version had been extended. I wish we’d seen the original first. I didn’t see anything wrong with the new scenes (and I’ve seen them before but didn’t realize the difference in versions until this time) but I’d like Billy to have seen the original first.

Texting – It’s Too Easy

Yesterday I wrote about new research which reveals some very interesting facts about text messaging among teens in the U.S.

All of this texting certainly raises serious concerns. Texting and driving, sexting, texting during class, the invasion of texting into academic work, and the complete destruction of the English language are certainly legitimate concerns (though that last one is an exaggeration in my opinion), but I am concerned about a couple of other issues. I wrote about one of those issues yesterday and I’d like to pick up with the other today.

It Impairs ~Some~ Social Skills

I don’t subscribe to the notion that all of our electronic communication makes us less social. To the contrary, I think much of it has increased our ability to communicate with each other.

My concern is that teens, because they are growing up with this technology available to them, may not learn other valuable social skills because of all the texting. While we are at it, let’s include Tweeting and Facebook updates, and even email.

I’ve noticed three trends that signal the problem:

1. texting love messages
2. breaking up, quitting, or firing via text
3. emoticons
4. teens prefer texting parents over calling

I’ll admit now that there is a positive side to numbers one and four. One could also argue that some of the problems I point out apply to other forms of communication which pre-date texting – like the folded notes we used to pass in high school, for example. Correct, but the issue – again – with texting is that it increases our ability to do something. Technology has a way of doing that. We use a technology to make a task easier, faster, or more convenient; thereby increasing all the negative associated with that task.

Let’s look at each one. These are not the problems. These are the signals that there is a problem.

Texting Love Messages

No doubt I see the positive side here. If texting can help a shy teenager strike up a conversation with someone he likes, that is fantastic. The problem begins, for me, when it becomes too easy to use texting and we don’t ever try to grow beyond that.

One writer puts it this way:

Personally, I find nothing interesting in the sms craze, except that it has boosted the confidence of some spineless fellows, who now find it easier to send love messages to girls they wouldn’t dare open their mouths to say the three little words. Campus VIBE Misuse of text messaging now borders on obsession

Learning to express your feeling verbally – over the phone and face to face – is an important part of growing up. If one shares his feelings only via texting, he is missing out on something. He is also depriving someone else of some very important things – not the least of which is the expectation of sincerity. Without the other signals present in verbal and face to face communication, one is left to wonder sometimes if the message was intended as a joke or something else.

Breaking Up (or quitting or firing) Via Text

I don’t know if firing is becoming a trend but I’ve read that it is starting to happen. Quitting via texting is starting to become more popular and I’m sure most of us have heard of someone using texting to break up with someone. This is just another example of using technology to avoid doing something difficult – something one must learn how to do.

It’s one thing to use an power tool to make a mundane task easier to accomplish. It’s another to apply the same logic to what, presumably, was an important interpersonal relationship between two human beings. Perhaps that is the problem – there was no real relationship there in the first place.

Using texting for one of these things is inexcusable. I am no expert at any of these situations – from either perspective – but I would have to guess that more than 90% of the time these things should be handled in person. The remaining 10% should be handled by telephone or some form of written communication. Texting – no way.

Starting a relationship with someone via texting may be okay – ending it is not.

Emoticons

Electronic communication is prone to misunderstanding and lacks the other signals present in verbal and face to face communication. This has led to the use of emoticons to make up for those signals. Unfortunately, it’s too easy.

If I were mad at you but I needed to communicate with you about something face to face, I’d need to work at treating you with respect, making my point clear, leaving our disagreement out of the conversation if it is not the point to our conversation, etc. If I were having that same conversation via text, I could type what I needed to type and use emoticons when necessary to “pretend” as if everything is okay.

Obviously, there is a place for emoticons. Remember, they are not the problem. The problem is that we use them so often in exactly the wrong way. It’s just too easy to make a sarcastic remark to someone and follow it with a to indicate that we are “only kidding.”

Teens Prefer Texting Parents Over Calling

As a parent I have to tell you – I prefer it too most of the time. I have two children. We don’t struggle with most of the things a lot of families do but I still find the parent-teenager relationship fascinating. When my son goes out somewhere I’d like to know what he is up to. As a good kid, he actually wants to keep me informed. He does not, however, want to sit amongst his friends and have an out-loud conversation with his dad. Can you blame him?

That is why I like it. I can text him and he will respond. I can ask him to text me when he gets somewhere and he will do it – most of the time. I can also usually ask as many questions as I want and he can answer in private. Same for my daughter.

But there is a down side – everything I’ve described above. Sometimes a phone conversation is necessary. There are other reasons teenagers prefer texting. When you text someone they can’t see or hear what is going on around you, they can’t tell if you’re drunk, they don’t even know it is really you. Many teens resort to texting as a way of keeping parents “off my back.” It’s more of the same – it makes my life easier so that must be better, right?

Something I read yesterday sums it all up really.

For Pam Zingeser, the big issue is not cost — it’s $30 a month for the family’s unlimited texting plan — but the effects of so much messaging. Pam wonders: What will this generation learn and what will they lose in the relentless stream of sentence fragments, abbreviations and emoticons? “Life’s issues are not always settled in sound bites,” Pam says. 6,473 Texts a Month, But at What Cost?

Texting Is A Distraction

New research reveals some very interesting facts about text messaging among teens in the U.S. and some of the numbers are staggering. According to the study by the Pew Internet and American Life Project, the average girl sends 80 texts per day (30 for boys) and 87% of teens say they sleep with or near their cell phones.

All of this texting certainly raises serious concerns. Texting and driving, sexting, texting during class, the invasion of texting into academic work, and the complete destruction of the English language are certainly legitimate concerns (though that last one is an exaggeration in my opinion), but I am concerned about a couple of other issues. I want to write about one of those issues today.

The Myth of Multi-Tasking

If you are like me you have grown very attached to at least one personal computing device. These devices – computers, smartphones, even our televisions – have the ability to do more than one thing at a time. They are literally “wired” to work that way.

Unfortunately, our minds do not appear to be wired that way. I’m sure the subconscious mind has a way of thinking of solutions to problems while we focus on other things which is probably why people have learned to “sleep on” things, but I am referring to something else. Most of us have tried to imitate computers by attempting to focus on more than one task at a time. This, I think, is a huge mistake.

Others have written about and discussed this subject, but the point I’d like to make today is that texting is another attempt to multi-task (in some cases). There is nothing wrong with having a conversation with someone via texting but it is another thing to send and respond to text messages all day long while attempting to focus on other things.

Frankly, the sheer amount of time spent texting scares me a little. Many of us don’t realize how much of our time is wasted in the physical act of stopping to text, followed by texting itself, followed by switching back to what we were doing – just in time to receive a reply. Sending 80 texts per day is bound to consume more time than it is worth.

More importantly, we are constantly drawing our attention away from something else we should be doing. It is not so much about which task is more important. I have no doubt that sometimes the thing I should be doing is texting but sometimes I should be doing something else – and NOT texting (or doing anything else). While trying to write this very short piece I was distracted by text messages more than a dozen times.

Kermit Ready to Walk Across Hot Coals

via urlesque.com

</p>

Posted via web from Bill’s posterous

</p>

Can We Just Stop All the Shouting So I Can Think?

Opponents of health care reform are making so much noise that I find I can’t even think straight. I am not sure I like all the provisions of the bill that was signed into law, but how am I to carefully consider these things with all the shouting?!

I am beginning to think this is an intentional strategy. If none of us can think, we can’t consider the issues. If all we do is shout back, we lose time we could be using productively.

There is no question in my mind, many on the Right are overreacting – and it is not just those on the Left who agree. David Frum and Joe Klein, both of whom could be considered a friend (certainly not an enemy) to the Right, both point out the overreaction.

Let’s take a look at just a few examples. Note the exclusion of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. Overreaction is a standard part of their game and we all know it.

The Wall Street Journal called the bill a “federal takeover of the U.S. health-care system,” and Dennis Prager calls the debate a Civil War! and goes on to say:

After Sunday’s vote, for the first time in American history, one could no longer confidently believe that the American system will prevail. And if we don’t fight for it, we don’t deserve it.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R – South Carolina) has begins his rant with this:

There’s no fixing the government health care takeover Democrats forced through on Sunday. It must be repealed.

Repealed? Really? Is that the best approach? Bill Kristol is on the repeal kick too. One of my favorite bloggers had this to say about repeal:

And how about a legal challenge? It’s nice to see the GOP is now in favor of “activist judges.”

DeMint goes on to say:

After telling Americans in 2008 that they would lower spending, taxes and insurance premiums, Democrats passed a bill that breaks every promise. Using secret deals, kickbacks and carve-outs, Democratic leaders jammed through legislation to control more than one-sixth of the nation’s economy.

The plan will explode the national debt, raise $569.2 billion in new taxes, force taxpayers to fund abortions, and impose unconstitutional mandates on every American.

All of this was done in the face of overwhelming public outrage and bipartisan opposition in Congress. This process has been an insult to our democracy and threatens our nation’s prosperity and freedom.

The rhetoric gets worse, though. David Limbaugh had this to say:

The Democrats’ passage of socialized medicine Sunday night will spell either the beginning of the end of this great nation or the beginning of the rebirth of its freedom. The choice is still in the hands of Americans.

Is this guy serious? I understand rhetoric and I understand value overstating one’s point can have but this is just too much. He goes on …

To borrow a phrase from President Barack Obama, “let’s be clear” on a couple of things:

First, it’s not an exaggeration to say Obamacare is socialized medicine; in fact, it doesn’t go far enough simply to say it represents the government takeover of our entire health care system. It is also a major step (begun long ago) in the complete dismantling of the unique American constitutional experiment and of the social compact between Americans and their government. Obama’s now-realized goal of fundamental change is to make the government the people’s master instead of their servant.

Secondly, we should not suffer gladly those painfully naive people who will continue to say that Obama and his obedient congressional Democrats are not radical. It may make people feel better about themselves to promote congeniality and bipartisanship, but to fantasize about such quixotic goals under this type of radical assault on our nation is tantamount to enabling it.

Government takeover? Dismantling of the social compact? Radical assault? There is more …

Thirdly, Obama and the Democrats have been unconscionably deceptive about their aims, even though Obama couldn’t help but reveal his extremism from time to time. He certainly promised “fundamental change” but was so vague that many assumed his idea of “hope and change” meant something consistent with American values. Others knew full well what grandiose plans he had in store to overthrow America’s social compact. There was no mistaking his intent when you examined his radical background and radical relationships; his extremist position on human life, including supporting a form of infanticide; his promise to redistribute wealth; his obvious grudge against America; and his experience as a street agitator in Chicago.

Obvious grudge against America? Street Agitator?

I don’t want the government to control every facet of my life, but is that really what this will lead to? Do we not live in a democratic republic where we can influence the laws of the land? Isn’t that what this is all about?

Two Cents Each – 3/29/2010

Alex Payne — How I Use TextMate

TextMate is my second favorite editor – after vim of course – and I love the bundles.

The Medium – Beep! – NYTimes.com

A fun read about a great sound and a great word.

Amazon: You Need To Change Your Idiotic Customer Reviews Policy Right Now

I don't like that some authors withhold the Kindle version, but this is not the appropriate way to respond.

Shut Up & Bring It | Talking Points Memo

Yeah!

Constitutionality of Mandatory Insurance

The new health care reform signed into law is not unconstitutional. It might not be perfect, it might not even be good, but it's constitutional.

Great Ideas – 3/28/2010

• Say It With Chocolate – Business Opportunities Weblog – link
• Steve in a Speedo?! Gross!: Friday Funny 81: How to Get Your Lost Camera Returned – link

• Work Smart: Avoid Office Distractions With Time Blocking

  Fast Company – link

• Op-Ed Guest Columnist – Ten for the Next Ten – NYTimes.com – link
• The Paint-Less Coca-Cola Would Save Earth One Can at a Time – Naked Coca-Cola Can – Gizmodo – link