College Football Makes The World a Worse Place

I went to a tiny liberal arts college in Central Florida. It's not known to many outside the state, except for foreign tourists, and was recently awarded the "US's Most Beautiful Campus" by the Princeton Review.

We had a bunch of national championships (I used to know exactly but I've lost count) in D2 sports and rarely had much of a following from students. At least not like some other schools have.

I've been criticized (getting close to being on a daily basis) for the teams I choose to follow.

I'd like to be clear, though:I've always been a baseball fan and have only recently come to follow football and basketball. I have never claimed to know a whole lot about any sports and am not as addicted to ESPN as some of my friends are. I've dealt with feeling left out of conversations and feeling stupid by many people's conversations. In an effort to NOT make that happen, I've attempted to pay more attention to sports. I've chosen a few teams to pay attention to, some of which my family members follow, some of which are schools I attended or have friends who attended, some of which I've followed for a while, and some of which I simply chose. I don't purchase a lot of team paraphernalia and so I think I'm completely within my right to follow whatever teams I'd like without the criticism from outside voices who happen to disagree. I have a few Duke hats and t-shirts (and by the way, I attend that school) and one Boston Red Sox hat. That's it. If I hear another criticism of what teams I do or don't follow, why, and why you look down upon me for following them, I WILL NO LONGER CONSIDER YOU A FRIEND. HEAR ME LOUD AND CLEAR...IT HAS BEEN ENOUGH, it is no longer funny.

For grad school, I selected Duke University. In case you haven't heard, Duke's basketball team (and this silly one down the street) is pretty competitive. Since going to Duke, I've found a new love for college basketball. I mean seriously, go to one game in Cameron Indoor and you'll love it. I do. I love it.

But Duke students suck. They really do.

Wait, we.

We yell, scream, shout obscenities, boo refs, scream some more, jump up and down, blow out your eardrums, and us Divinity students forget we have a life of faith for a couple of hours once a week or so. We talk a lot of basketball outside of Cameron but most of us leave the rude behavior in the room. Or, at least we try.

But now...college football season is here. While Duke has a pretty awful football team, I am from a state with a few good ones. And the hate circling Facebook (and I admit, I add to it) is again out of control. Rivalries vs. Rivalries, teams seemingly forgotten about trying to prove themselves, teams ranked highly trying to maintain their rankings, teams from the middle of nowhere going 5-0, and certain conferences dominating. It makes for "fun" conversation but the addition of Internet trolls (again, I'm not innocent) has made it worse.

But college football has gotten worse with the advent of social media.

Rivalries that bordered on hatred have developed into full-on hatred. And relationships are hurt and broken. It's no longer about disagreements, it's about who is right and why your loyalty to a team is far better than another person's loyalty. And if you cheer for a team and didn't attend that school, your fandom is somehow less than the other person's fandom (there's a strong argument to be made that this theory is correct...I used it with Duke earlier...but I don't ever think that a Duke fan who didn't attend is less of a fan than little old me who has been here for a year and a half). And if they think about things differently, you're wrong.

And it all comes down to winning and losing.

And I suppose I'm starting to see that this does nothing for unity.
It does nothing for society. Except sell t-shirts when your team wins.

I guess I'm kind of tired of the world taking themselves too seriously.
I guess I'm kind of tired of people not taking jokes.
I guess I'm kind of tired of us acting like winning is everything.
I guess I'm kind of tired of us thinking that our colors define who we are.
I guess I'm kind of tired of us.

We hurt others. We don't have conversations. And we alienate large groups of people. And while we may be unified inside those stadiums, we segregate ourselves.

I'm guilty of it, and I'd imagine many of you are too.

-B

Seriously, enough with the hate on the teams I follow and comment on. It's enough. Really. What do you gain by making fun of me? Like really, what?

"OH MY GOD, ROB BELL IS RUINING OUR LIVES!!!!"

Rob Bell announced yesterday that he and Carleton Cuse (of LOST fame) will be writing a TV show that has been picked up by ABC. He and his family are moving to Los Angeles from Grand Rapids, Michigan. It is only now appropriate for his Mars Hill family to wish him "Farewell, Rob Bell". I wish him serious luck. Hollywood is a mean, ripyouupeatyoursoulandthrowyououtwiththedogs kind of business and if the show doesn't play well, you'll be able to buy all ten episodes of "The Complete Series" at Target for $39.99 in a year or so.

Most Christians I know have become very cynical of this news. Wait, the word "cynical" is too generous.

I've been thinking, though, what my reaction might be if I was all the various types of Christians out there. These are generalized statements and intended to be humorous, so don't get too angry if you fit into these categories:

Reformed Piper Followers - "This guy has been going off the deep end for a long time. When will he learn that Love is not for everyone and that God picks and chooses who He saves? Farewell, Rob Bell. Welcome to your life of fame."

Roman Catholics - "These evangelicals will never understand that the Church, even above God, AND DEFINITELY NOT TV is at the center of all things good in the world."

Nondenominational hip Churches - "Dang, wish we could have thought of that. I guess our Twitter account won't cut it anymore."

United Methodists - "Hey, will someone tell us what to think of this? We can't seem to make up our minds about anything important."

Mormons - "He thinks a TV show is an effective way to change the world? Why doesn't he just run for President?"

Southern Baptists - "At least it's not a woman."

Passion 20somethings - "When can we get Chris and Louie on a TV show?"

Divinity Students - "Bell is too centered on himself and his megachurch obviously isn't big enough for him anymore. Down with the megachurch! Down with the megachurch!"

It seems absurd to me that so many of us might be so quick to judge because of a few website headlines we read. Bell is a phenomenal, charismatic, well-read communicator who happens to have followed a call into ministry off of a chance preaching opportunity years ago. He's been picked as one of the most influential pastors in America and has made it his mission to welcome back those hurt by the church by incorporating relevant and trendy cultural points into his sermons and speaking engagements.

Beyond that, Bell is controversial and not afraid to be so. He borders on being more "spiritual" and less "Jesusy" with the hopes that if he can attract people to a new way of life and understanding of Scripture, he can make better disciples. This, because it seems to be less traditional, is controversial. But Bell is not afraid to be so. People respect that, and because he is quite charismatic, and they follow him. The strongest argument against him is that he lost Jesus, but if you study him carefully...you'll find that it's simply not true. Jesus is a significant part of Bell's theology, rightly so.

Bell isn't as anti-traditional as some have made him out to be. I've seen nearly all of his videos and listened to countless sermons of his and I've rarely come across some sort of exegetical insight that I strongly disagreed with (at last not any more than you might find in any mainline church in any town in America).

It's time we stop thinking of religious innovators (and while that term probably does mean progress, it DOES NOT mean a loss of tradition) as inherently "bad". We must judge the preacher on the content and gifts and less on how we view people who have the same church-style.

And beyond all that, it's time we start approaching ministry and those attempting it from a positive stance, and only after that criticizing his/her work from an understanding of their theology, and not from our own personal bias.

If we fight inside these walls and don't go out there, they'll always find another one. Something is wrong...something is terribly wrong.

-B

Thoughts on the New Facebook or, "STOP CHANGING, FACEBOOK!"

Yesterday, Reed Hastings (CEO of Netflix) included this statement in his apology letter to Netflix's customers:

For the past five years, my greatest fear at Netflix has been that we wouldn't make the leap from success in DVDs to success in streaming. Most companies that are great at something – like AOL dialup or Borders bookstores – do not become great at new things people want (streaming for us).

(Keep this thought process in the back of your mind for now. We'll get back to it)

Today, Google opened up Google+ up to everybody (something I argue they should have done since the beginning), including anyone without an invite.

Coincidently (or perhaps not so) Facebook made some significant changes to their layout, functionality, and design over the past week. We all know the one constant in our lives: when Facebook makes a change, the whole world complains.

Without a doubt, the changes Facebook made are significant. The way stories show up in a news feed is almost completely different and they've now instituted an extra "creeper bar" (not mine or Facebook's terminology) to show the user what's going on with their friends, in real time.

Most of the comments I've heard are not based around the design factors, the content, the creepiness, or anything else.  No, the comments I've heard have almost all been monolithic: "STOP CHANGING, FACEBOOK!"

I suppose that somewhere inside of all of us is an inherent desire to remain comfortable. I suppose we all want to stick with what we have.  It is the same reason that sooooo many people are still running Windows XP. If something costs money and is likely to make things more confusing, people are likely to forego it if at all possible.

What occurred to me, though, was that no one complains about Windows coming out with a new OS because it changes(I have it, more comments later on it). No one complains about Apple coming out with a new OS because it changes.  Why? Probably because it costs money to upgrade. **I'll forego, at this time, my argument that everyone should upgrade (except for Windows Vista) to a new Operating System whenever possible.**

But with Facebook, you don't get a choice.  They upgrade your account and Facebook experience for you, without your permission.  And no, they didn't ask you first.

And Facebook is free. They control what you can and can't do (no matter how much we convince ourselves that we are in control of our own information) and we are their mercy.

So why the problem? Why the complaints?

Because Facebook has to change. Because there was this little company that started a social network with a dumb bird as a logo that is growing at unbelievable speeds. And because one of the biggest companies in the world that seemingly controls all of the information on the internet and how we find it decided to create a pretty good competitor to the big FBook.

And, people don't have a lot of loyalty to Facebook.  They don't have any money invested in it. And switching networks will become more feasible as more people are on both.

There's a threat at hand. Facebook is facing an enemy, one who is trying to steal their user base. This hurts page views.  This hurts ad clicks.  This hurts profits.  This hurts their business model.

They can't remain stagnate. No one can.

The best thing a Facebook user can do is to accept the fact that one of the biggest things they're addicted to in the world is really, at its heart, a competitive business and nothing more. Zuckerberg might try to sell you on their "connect everyone better" mission, but they won't survive without money. Like any capitalistic group, Facebook is a business and needs to stay that way to move any further. When people invade their turf, they're going to fight back with everything they can because...they simply have to.

The better question ought to be, "How can you change, make yourself more useful, and still maintain a simplistic atmosphere moving forward..one that doesn't confuse people?"

This is what Google has nailed. When they came into the search scene, they didn't just stay with search. They made themselves better.  They evolved.  They made themselves more useful. But, when you're trying to find something on Google.com, there's no question as to where to start typing.

None.

-B

So-RAWR-ity

One of Duke's Wesleyans pointed me to this little gem this weekend. What a find. Thank God 1) This is fake and 2) My Greek community was nothing like this:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=be3JM-fg4uE&]

-B

Ten Years Later: Thoughts on Christianity in America

I was in second period band when someone from the front office of the school came into the room, whispered something in the band director's ear and then announced to the class that two planes had hit the World Trade Center. She began her statement by saying, "I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but our country is under attack as two passenger jets have hit the World Trade Center in New York City."

It's funny the things you remember so perfectly. I feel like I even remember the temperature of the room.

I also remember this well: George Bush standing with firefighters and his bullhorn saying, "The people who hit these buildings will hear all of us soon!" According to his book, he said this in a response to someone in the crowd shouting, "We can't hear you!"

Chills. I got, and still do get, chills.

Retaliation. There's got to be some sort of inner (almost definitely sinful) human desire to get someone back who has wronged you. So, when the President of the US stands at Ground Zero and tells those who had gone into the fallen building and the country that we were going to get them back for what they had done and we were so overwhelmed with emotion and anger, we cheered. We clapped. We went to war.

Today, we remember all of those who lost their lives on 9/11/01. Today, we remember and honor the lives of those who we now consider heroes: those who risked their lives to save another. Today, we remember all of the loved ones who lost their lives fighting insurgents and terrorists in far away countries. Today, we honor those still serving overseas.

And we should. We should remember. We should honor.

But, I can't help to rethink my original feelings when I heard Bush's bullhorn moment. What is it that makes me feel so patriotic? What is it that gives me chills? What is it that still angers me when I see the TV footage?

Can I get the chills? Is that right? Or am I moved by something I shouldn't be? Doesn't God call on us to forgive completely? Does Jesus call on us to love our enemies? If so, and I truly believe that, why is it that I constantly think about how angry 9/11 made me? Can I truly get excited when I find out that the man who masterminded these attacks has been shot and killed by our own forces?

These are some of the most difficult questions an American Christian can ask themselves.

Because, as a Nationalist, the first reaction is to flood the White House gates with an American flag around our shoulders. Because victory, over something so tragic, is sooo sweet.

We are a nation with a history of getting what we want.

We've always had an innovative military system. We've always had a string of religious principles that has been with us throughout our short history. We've always been geographically separated from so many of the world's problems. We have led the Christian movement in many ways in the world over the past 200 years. We were also that nation that dropped two obliterating bombs on the nation that invaded our naval base. We helped end the Nazi regime, but we also interned Japanese and Native Americans. We fought each other hard over ending the enslavement of humans. And even after that, it took another 80 years (and we are still not there) to treat all American citizens like actual humans. Our leaders sometimes swear oaths with God's name mentioned. We have religious, Biblical themes throughout almost everything we do. We allow churches to function without the headache of paying taxes. But we also highly profiled Muslim citizens wanting to fly from place to place after 9/11.

We are used to getting what we want. We are strong. We are relatively united. And our culture is that which supports and encourages any citizens to strive their best to get what they want or need.

Which is why, I think, we are so offended when we are attacked on our own soil. And, because we operate inside of that paradigm of thinking, our reaction draws emotional stimuli. And when our leader says out loud what we are feeling deeply inside ourselves, we get chills.

Because we have to defend our lands. From our very beginnings, we don't like people telling us what to do.

The question, then, truly is this: can American Christians, a group that from our Jewish backgrounds has been somewhat nomadic and lacks a centering geographical location for our "home", live in an authentic dual citizenship between God and country?

There are so many fundamental conflicting values between the two. And, perhaps, these are best seen and discovered when we remember times when we were so offended by actions against us.

To me, these questions, these ponderings, and these conflictions are the reason that as American Christians, we must study the Holy Scriptures. We must learn and synthesize the history of the Church. We must read and prayerfully consider what Christ asked us to do when he spoke about how we interact with one another. We must read Paul as a guide for our lives of faith.

There seems to be a movement in American Christianity to refer to Scripture whenever they don't know the answer to something. I tend to think that they're right...they just often choose the least important decisions to focus on, rather than overarching themes and principles. We focus so much more on gay marriage, something Jesus didn't even mention by our records, when we ought to be focusing on loving our enemies, something he spoke strongly about.

If we forget who we as Christians are, and we often do in America, we run the risk of making hasty decisions that increase violence and war in the world, rather than bringing about peace and love.

Isn't that our goal? Isn't that God's goal? Peace, hope, faith, and love?

I think so.

America has changed Christianity significantly since 1776. I can't explain it, but I'm convinced that we can be both American citizens and Christians.

The question, for all of us, should be on a day like 9/11, how?

-B

"Wrong Worship"

Divinity School has been busy. Sorry it's been so long.

Give the next few minutes of your life to this clip.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJp98hoqy5I&w=640&h=385]

It is evidently a clip used in a sermon illustration at what appears to be First Baptist Church in Orlando, FL.

I've been to the church before. It's huge and their growing services are almost all in the contemporary style.

It seems to me that out of context this might appear to be a treatise against contemporary music, the performance-based nature of the art, and the sad reality that has come with the modern church.

I think this is what many people see when they see contemporary music. I think this is what many think of when they think of modern worship.

While I think the video makes some great points about the me-centered church and cultural bindings that have come with the modern church movement, I also worry about the danger it brings to those who criticize the modern church and contemporary music. Are some of the songs sung "hymns"? Sure. But, the giant stage, lights, microphones, and everything else that comes with it may add fuel to the raging fire around what seems to be a growing dislike for the modern worship movement.

It's an interesting introspective look at what modern music has done to our world, the dangers that lie within any type of musical worship literature, and it surely will serve as an accountability measure for the faith community.

Funny, too.

-B

Fitting Into Societal Norms

Throughout my life, I've struggled with a lack of discipline in many areas of my life. I was never one who thoroughly enjoyed exercise or the simple discipline of it and I LOVED eating. As time has progressed and my metabolism has been unable to keep up with my poor habits, my body has taken the brunt force of those "bad" habits and it has become a factor of embarrassment for me as I try to relearn what it means to take care of my body, from the way that certainly seemed more "natural".

So, recently, I've been watching what seems to be the new trend in television: shows on losing weight. After all, when A&E does a series, you know it is the trend. I suppose it most likely started with "The Biggest Loser", but "Extreme Makeover: Weight Loss Edition" and A&E's own "Heavy" have been most popular in recent months. I've watched significant portions of each show, trying to wrestle with how these people came to be in the position they are, what lifestyle decisions they've made, and why it is that they can't seem to change themselves, by themselves.

All of the participants in these shows are significantly overweight. More than I ever hope to be. Yet, I still find it intriguing because I recognize their lack of desire to work and equate it with my struggle as well. No, I'm not 500 pounds, I'm not even that close to half of that, but I figure that if I can learn about what it is they need to change about themselves, perhaps it will assist me in changing myself as well.

The question always seems to be begged: why is the change necessary?

These people break down into two distinct groups (as I can see it). About half of them have been overweight since birth. The other half had some sort of traumatic experience in their lives that has driven them to compulsive eating. Most of the second group deal with some sort of depression.

The first group, though, is the most interesting to me. They've always been overweight. They've always eaten a lot. They've rarely exercised. Surely some of that is due to their upbringing, the sudden growth of fast food, etc. However, it makes me wonder, why is it that they never exercised? Why is it that they ate more than a normal human should? And I wonder these things because I wonder them about myself as well. Why is it that I chose to go play the piano or guitar before going for a run? Did I not find running interesting? Did I find running painful? Why is it that some people are encouraged when the pain sets in? Why is it that some people can easily fight through the pain when others of us cower in fear? If it is "natural" to exercise, why is it that most of us don't? Why is it that we come up with easier ways to get around so that we can avoid exercise at all cost?

Surely when our societies were hunters and gatherers, we were in great shape because we had to hunt down the food we were going to eat that night. And we weren't eating fried potatoes.

But that wasn't sustainable for the long haul. It seemed easier, and profitable, to do the hunting FOR other people. Then we'd sell them the food. That'd make it easier. Then we'd be able to feed more people more efficiently. And we are humans...we love efficiency. We build tools to help us be more efficient.

It's obvious what has occurred: we've built tools to help make our lives easier. That's why we are all addicted to our smart phones and iPads. We spend more time inside than any generation before us. We walk and run less than any other generation because there are enough distractions other than exercise. And it has come to the point that when we are walking around the mall our mood goes down when we see stairs, because we'd rather ride the escalator.

But I return to my original thought: discipline. Have we become undisciplined and lazy?

Or, has laziness simply become a byproduct of progress? Or "naturally", are we more inclined to create tools to help us? Or is the hunting and gathering mindset what is really "natural"?

Which leads me to my ultimate thought: does what is "natural" always fit into a societal norm? And, is what is "natural" always the high road and good?

Some people are born with a chemical imbalance that leads them to abuse alcohol. We all know the phrase, even after you're clean, "Once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic." On ABC Family's "Switched at Birth", one of the characters is an alcoholic. She's hard on her biological daughter who chose to drink prior to being an adult. The daughter didn't understand why she was being so hard on her. But the mother explained that she simply doesn't have luxury of being able to have one drink. It's not possible because of who she is. But just because her bodily inclinations and behavior lead her to act in certain ways, doesn't mean that society thinks it is okay to be an alcoholic. We look down on drunks.

The same is true of drug users.

The same has been said of gay people.

And so, I suppose the question ought to be asked of societal norms: are societal norms (and accepted practices) based on what we might consider "destructive" behavior? In other words, do we judge others' actions because what they do puts them (and often others) at risk of dying sooner than they might?

The extremely obese people will die because their body and heart simply can't keep up. Alcohol abusers will drive themselves out of house, home, and family, because they use alcohol to cope. Drug abusers run the very real risk of overdosing or taking something that they thought was something else.

And they all become addicts. They become so engorged in what they are doing that they don't care about anything. They lose their families, they lose their jobs, they lose their lives.

Because these things...the unnatural foods, the copious amounts of alcohol, the drugs, all seem...unnatural.

The laziness is unnatural. Because that's not how we once lived.

And we draw this line to connect the dots between "unnatural" and "destructive". And we assume, in almost every instance, that these two are inherently connected.

And if we think under that paradigm, we can perhaps see why homosexuality has been treated, in our society, the way it has. Biblically, it seems unnatural. Many of the conservative voices have argued time and time again that it is "destructive" to our society because it breaks down how we view humanity and the design of a family. Many view it as an addiction, one that can be "treated" (see Michele Bachmann's husband).

Because we've connected those dots. We operate under that mindset. We equate "unnatural" with "bad". We think everything that is "unnatural" is "destructive".

There's no doubt in my mind that many of the Biblical writers (for the most part) consider being gay (or participating in homosexual acts) "unnatural". AND, because of the societal norms of their culture, and the cultures working against them, they equated "unnatural" with "bad" or "sinful".

So the question becomes: can we read "unnatural" in the Scriptures and equate it with our definition of unnatural now...post French Fry? Can we read into God's creation of Adam and Eve and assume that that is what is "natural"?

Because that is what we are doing. We are reading texts out of context. We are placing our own 21st century definitions on words used thousands of years ago. And we assume, that because what seems unnatural now has proven itself to be destructive, that that's what "unnatural" has always and will always mean. And we assume that what society currently considers "normal" behavior is the correct way to be. And when we do that, we lose sight of humanity and of God's creation of it.

It's a tough thought process, one with unclear implications and most likely more divisiveness than unity. It's troubling.

I was not born with an inherent desire to exercise. I have always been a fan of progress. This is the "unnatural" reality I live in. At the end of the day, I really like my iPad...but I still need to exercise.

-B

Yes, I know this doesn't make a clear and decisive argument, as you might be used to getting. That's because I'm not sure this can all be answered.

Google Buys Motorola, Forgets What "Open" Means

Since Android made its public debut in Google's hands, it has been touted as being the up and coming "open" system of the future.  Inside of all of us, we all like a little bit of socialism, so it made sense for Google to use this to market themselves. When Android first popped up on the G1, it was clear (from its design alone) who its major competitor was going to be...Apple. Apple is not a company that would ever describe themselves as "open". In fact, Apple uses the fact that they are defiantly "closed" to have more control over their products.  It allows them to have a true...taste...to their products and the market has proven that this had made for very successful products.

Google touts itself as being free, existent for the masses, and "open". This is their marketing ploy.

But it's not that they're really open. The way they've handled Android has been anything but a true "open" system. You might say that when they say "open", they really mean, "We aren't Apple."

Today, Google made a move that supports these thoughts. Google announced that they are going to be purchasing Motorola Mobile, the company that has been manufacturing some of their Android handsets since the beginning of the DROID movement. Google says that they purchased Motorola because of their patents, as a way to "protect" Android from the evil "AppleSoft" hand that has come down on them recently. You'll remember my take on it.

It is true that Motorola had a bunch of patents that will help strengthen Android's arms (because as of late, the amount of patents you own correlates directly with how well you do and how little you get sued).

What's curious to me is that Google almost immediately posted comments from the other manufacturers that make Android handsets. Here's a few examples:

“We welcome today’s news, which demonstrates Google’s deep commitment to defending Android, its partners, and the ecosystem.”

– J.K. Shin President, Samsung, Mobile Communications Division

“We welcome the news of today‘s acquisition, which demonstrates that Google is deeply committed to defending Android, its partners, and the entire ecosystem.”

– Peter Chou CEO, HTC Corp.

“We welcome Google‘s commitment to defending Android and its partners.”

– Jong-Seok Park, Ph.D President & CEO, LG Electronics Mobile Communications Company

This isn't all of them (you can read the others here), but you get the idea.

A few things strike my mind:

• These comments all seem remarkably similar (and the speakers of them have been remarkably silent today)
• Google posted these almost immediately (I would think for fear of the press thinking this was a poor idea)

And why? Because it is a poor idea.

You can't blame Google for wanting to buy up patents. After all, that's what they were upset at AppleSoft about.

But Google is now going to be running Motorola. They've announced that it'll be a separate function and business, but it will still be a Google business. The CEO will have to take care with it.  It will affect their bottom line.  It will become, in just a matter of time, a conflict of interest for Google when it comes to working with other manufacturers.

This is different than just buying up patents.  This is buying a company...a company that directly competes with other companies that use your product. The other companies will have to compete to survive against you. Then your company will have to compete to survive against them. And you own the OS.  You'll start thinking about who should get new updates first.  You'll start thinking that you can use this to get a competitive advantage.

Andy Rubin (head of Android at Google) has said many times that Google's Nexus phones and tablets are examples of what can be accomplished when the hardware and software manufacturers work together perfectly. This has been Apple's approach since the beginning. This will surely be one of Google's approaches moving forward.

But make no bones about it, this is Google making itself available to have more control over the end product. Hopefully, this will create better products. But along with that, leaves the idea of "open".

Apple has said it from the beginning: Control is good. Control creates better products. Does it eliminate a little user-friendly choice? Sure. But I don't remember people asking for choice recently.  I remember people asking for a good phone, one that works.

This is a good move for Google, I think. But they may truly tarnish their name before it is all over. HTC, LG, etc are going to be eating their words soon.

Goodbye "open". Welcome, "quality".

-B

Google: The Whining Bully

I don't remember the days before Google. Actually, I do. I remember Ask Jeeves (marketing used to the max), Dogpile, Yahoo (do people still use Yahoo?), AOL keywords, and so many other search engines and tools to navigate through the seemingly endless supply of websites online.

My children, though, will never know the days without Google.

We can argue left or right all day long about whether or not Google's impact on society has been positive or negative, but we will all agree that Google is present, in a big way, in all of our lives. We might even say that without Google in our lives, our existences would become a little more inconvenient. Things that we take for granted now would be gone.

We all know this. Perhaps more importantly, Google knows this. And for the better half of the last ten years, Google has been used to getting their way. They've made it their goal to document all of the ongoings of every part of the world, and have been (since day one) relatively unapologetic about their approaches.

Perhaps the best part of Google's plan? Everything is free. Everything Google offers (or seemingly everything) is free of charge to the end user. So with an almost endless supply of funding, a seemingly completely free product(s), and some of the smartest brains in the world on staff, Google has risen to the commercial power that they are today. Because Google sells ads on everything they produce, they make more and more money. Because they offer it for free, they gain more and more users. The only thing it costs the user: their information and privacy. Great deal, huh?

Whatever you think, their business model is very different than the ones of other companies.

A few months after the original iPhone released, Google made some of the work they had been doing on mobile devices known to the public. They had purchased a company writing mobile operating system software (Android Inc.) and decided (with a small alliance) to begin a movement toward popularizing open source software on mobile phones. Mobile phones had been plagued for years by the software that sat on them because the carriers locked down features, removed featured and mostly, crippled the phones. When Apple approached the first iPhone, they swore to take the control of the software themselves. When Android was announced, the pitch made was that NO ONE would have control over the device. It wouldn't cost to develop for it, it wouldn't cost to sell your app, it wouldn't cost to put the operating system on a device, and ANYONE could change whatever they wanted. Google wasn't releasing a phone, they were releasing an open source operating system.

Because for it to make any sense in Google's portfolio, it had to be completely free.

I'll, at this time, forego the argument that by giving up control over the operating system, Google gave control back to the cash-hungry-rotten-steal-all-your-money carriers.

Besides a few hurt feelings and harsh words between the two upcoming industry leaders, life went on as normal. The market, because it was free to put on any device, was flooded with Android handsets and devices and as time went on and the operating system became a little more refined, Google's Android became the number one used mobile operating system on a smart phone.

And sales at Apple remained positive. And companies like HTC and Samsung were able to make a significant mark in sales, when their numbers had previously paled in comparison to RIM's BlackBerry sales. And while it remained competitive, things were going along fine. More people were buying smart phones. A previously untapped market was beginning to be tapped.

Then crap went down.

A series of patents came up for sale from tech giant Nortel. Among the bidders for these patents: Apple, RIM, Google, and Microsoft. Google reportedly bid 3.14159 billion US dollars for these series of patents, while Microsoft and Apple (and others) bid together 4.5 billion US dollars for these patents. The highest bidder wins. And they did.

And that's all great. But Google wasn't happy.

Mostly because if these patents belong to Android's competitors, it will cost royalty money to put Android on a device. Google says somewhere in the range of $15 per unit.

The bottom line: putting Android on a device will no longer be free.

David Drummond (SVP and CLO for Google) posted a blog post called "When Patents Attack" claiming that these companies were ganging up against Google in an effort to stop Android and oppress them. Some highlights:

Microsoft and Apple have always been at each other’s throats, so when they get into bed together you have to start wondering what's going on.

But Android’s success has yielded something else: a hostile, organized campaign against Android by Microsoft, Oracle, Apple and other companies, waged through bogus patents.

A smartphone might involve as many as 250,000 (largely questionable) patent claims, and our competitors want to impose a “tax” for these dubious patents that makes Android devices more expensive for consumers. They want to make it harder for manufacturers to sell Android devices. Instead of competing by building new features or devices, they are fighting through litigation.

Patents were meant to encourage innovation, but lately they are being used as a weapon to stop it.

I might actually argue that patents were not intended to encourage innovation, as much as to protect innovation. Sure, knowing your innovations are protected is encouragement, but that was not the point of them.

Google is claiming that this group of companies is fighting against them through litigation. But Google forgets to mention that they ran into the other people's business with a free product, determined to overrun the market. Microsoft has to charge for their software...its their business, it is how they make money. To truly compete (with open source software), companies like Microsoft would have to have that revenue from somewhere else. They'd have to develop the ad revenue that Google has. And, at this point, it's impossible. Google is such a large corporation that almost no one can compete with their power. How can Microsoft win hardware manufacturers' hearts because Google has such a large ad revenue that they can afford to make it free?

They can't.

It's as if the I-make-the-rules-because-I-own-the-guns gang leader gets upset because the rival gang leader goes out and buys his own gun. Oh no, who makes the rules now? Who enforces what rule now?

In the business world, you have to play by the rules of the game...whatever that game is, at whatever time it happens to be. If you want a piece of mobile advertising, you partner with a computer giant for their release and then go behind their backs and release a similar mobile operating system for free so that the cost to manufacturers is much lower. If you feel as if you're losing ground to an operating system that is being given out for free and you know that that operating system violates several patents that a now defunct tech company owns, you buy them up to even the playing field.

It's the way that business works. It's the way the world works.

So, play by the rules. Throw the cheap shots. Invade others' turf. Undercut their margins and prices. Talk yourself up and convince people to become addicted to your products.

Do all these things, because it's business, innovation, and the American Dream.

But for God's sake, don't complain about it.

You were the one who spurred it on to begin with.

-B

For the record, I really enjoy both Google and Apple's business models. I think Google's is a bit scarier but I have faith that our government will help keep us protected in a situation where Google would become Big Brother. I'm just, as in the case of Casey Anthony, tired of people (especially company leaders) publicly complaining about how the rules were followed.

Play the game, because the game is all you have.

Derek Jeter 3K

Anyone who knows me knows that I can't stand the pinstripes. Maybe it's the fact that I grew up as a huge Braves fan. Maybe it's because I started following the Red Sox in college. Maybe it's because of the way I was treated in Yankee Stadium (the real one). Maybe it's because I couldn't stand the way that Steinbrenner bought his way to championships. Maybe it's because they tore down one of America's best known buildings.

Maybe it's jealousy that the Yankees have had one of the greatest rosters of all time.

In any case, there is one Yankee that everyone has to like. He's never been in trouble with the media. He seems to be so humble whenever he speaks. He's easily one of the best shortstops of all time. He now belongs to the 3,000 hit club. He will belong to the Hall of Fame when all is said and done.

Derek Jeter is about the only reason to watch a Yankee game.

This looks like a phenomenal documentary.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyDvPObUfcA&w=640&h=385]

-B

God Bless NASCAR

Somehow I missed this entire meme until now. Work has been too busy, I guess.

So...there's this pastor. I think he's a pastor of Family Baptist Church in Lebanon, TN. In April, he prayed this prayer before a NASCAR race: You don't want to miss this.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dCj7n1PhHA&w=640&h=385]Let's be straight: that was good. Quality communication with the Father if I do say so myself.

But only a few months later, big boy outdid himself. If you skipped the first one, shame on you. DONT MISS THIS ONE.

Boogity, boogity, boogity, AMEN

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J74y88YuSJ8&w=640&h=385]The faces of the drivers are about the most wonderful thing in the world. I'll forego this opportunity to criticize his use of the word "power" when he has been charged with demonstrating and relating the power of God. I think he stole the "Boogity" line from Darrell Waltrip, but he used it in a way that will be remembered for ages.

Of course, the Songify kids put this gem together (though I think footage from a Dale Earnhardt crash is probably in poor taste):

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZnDt2wEFjk&w=640&h=385]I hope you've benefited from this experience. I know I have.

Lessons I've learned: I want to go to his church and God Bless NASCAR.

Boogity, boogity, boogity, AMEN.

-B

UPDATE: It's Lebanon, TN, not Nashville. Also, their website is a real treat. FULLY colored in Red, White, and Blue. You need to check it out. Do so, here.

Lockout Professionals

Funny. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFsF064Ljzs&]

I've never really watched the NBA. I might have been a fan this year, but if this lockout doesn't get worked out, probably never.

I feel badly for Kyrie.

-B

We May Not Think Our Judicial System is "Just"...

...but I'm constantly reminded about the nations around the world where people aren't treated like people. Instead, they're treated like puppets. Many citizens of North Korea worship their history of dictators who have oppressed them for years.

I'm reminded of this when I glance around the world on Google Maps and see the oddity that is the lack of information on North Korea. When the government gives out no information about their nation, the chances that heinous crimes against humanity are being committed and that the inalienable rights (especially life and liberty)are being revoked are very, very high.

I'm not one of those "America has to spread freedom across the lands" kind of crazies, but I think that all humans deserve the types of opportunities that I received from my life here, in my parents' house, in America. When I see these pictures, I know that that simply is not happening.

My heart aches for the citizens of North Korea and other nations where the leadership does not work for the people, but rather, works against them.

And by the way, that "all humans deserve" line refers to domestic humans as well as humans abroad. The guy down the street who is holding a sign that we all try to ignore deserves every shot I got, not because he is an American, but because he is a human.

-B

NOTE: I use the term "nation" here intentionally, in contrast to "country." I think most of us define "nation" as a group of people, many of which most likely share a common heritage, ethnicity (very literally, "nation"), race, and mindset. I recognize that many states (meaning countries) block off immigration and emigration with their borders, but I also know that some of the brainwashing that occurs is kindled by the idea that starting over simply doesn't seem like a reality. To start over means to leave family, friends, work, life, and all and move. Some are willing, but many are not. It is an interesting dynamic, isn't it, that sometimes the nation holds people in oppression just as much as the often evil leadership does? I think it is worth an in-depth study.

"Language" by Stephen Fry

Great essay, I thought. And oh, the animation. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7E-aoXLZGY&hd=1]

Found via Andy Ihnatko (On Google+.  I'd include a public link, but I can't figure it out.)

-B

John Adams on Innocence

I tried to post this to Facebook as a status, but Zuck has a moral conflict against posts longer than 420 characters. I felt like this was important to share. John Adams on innocence and guilt in society:

It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished. But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say, “whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection,” and if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that would be the end of security whatsoever.

(Found via John Gruber via Andy Ihnatko)

Page of quotes can be found here.

This was obviously key to the founding fathers' thoughts on our legal system. I like it a lot. How wise.

The problem in our society today is that because of bias in the media and our own sick desires to see people punished and "brought to justice" is that it is impossible for presumption of innocence to become a reality. The jury showed today that we can still have presumed innocence. If only the rest of America could react in the way that today's jury did.

-B

When a Woman Loves a Woman

Well, the trial is over. Because of the lack of updates on Amy DeLong's own website and the slow moving articles from UMC.org, I found out about the trial verdicts in the same way that most of you did. In the same way I found out about Michael Jackson's death. And in the same way most of the world found out that the criminal mastermind who hired people to fly planes into our buildings had been killed: Twitter.

So, though the UMC has posted pictures of the trial, the important worship services before and throughout the trials and sentencing, it is important to note that I, nor many who read this, have any clue about how this all shook out exactly. Some tweeters were there, and helped us along the way but taking their word for it. But trying to understand and really "get" what happened in that church without being there is like...well, a little reading the Bible in English. You mostly get the idea (and even exact quotes) but so, so much is lost. 140 characters just doesn't quite do it.

If you're looking for more "reporting" than Twitter can give you, just check out UMC.org and various other sites for as much info as you can find.

Story, as I hear it, is that she was acquitted 12-1 that she was a "self-avowed practicing homosexual". From what we all hear, she refused to answer some of the questions regarding this, citing that they were being asked in an accusatory manner. I see her point. But I also think that true "evidence" exists that is published by Rev. DeLong that submits that she is "guilty". I'm happy for Rev. DeLong because this verdict means that the person she loves hasn't held her back from pursuing her calling.

She was, though, guilty on the other charge...as we all expected. I think I made it clear last time, Amy broke the rules.

The punishment was a bit of a slap on the wrist but anyone who might have either expected or hoped for something more substantial probably wasn't being realistic. She was assigned to a 20-day suspension (seems to me like a "think-about-what-you-did" scenario) and to write a document for some sort of presentation at General Conference 2012. I really like the second penalty. I think it'll take her passion and put it into a position where it can actually make a difference, and possibly...a change. That's great.

I've received quite a bit of negative feedback in regards to my first post, as many who sit clearly on the side of Rev. DeLong have seen my post as a means of arguing against homosexuality. I wasn't. I was only saying that Rev. DeLong broke the rules. Even in my remarks regarding her baptism, I wished to point out that the movements against her have simply been to maintain fairness.

I have heard many "unjust rules were meant to be broken" ala MLK Jr arguments. Politically, I actually agree. I have made it quite clear that I think that God loves all of God's children. What I neglected to make as clear is that I see, as I think you should, a difference here in the political argument as opposed to the religious argument. The United States says that all are equal. So, all should be equal. Rosa Parks, MLK, Malcolm, X, and many many others fought for this cause. They were jailed for their efforts as well. And they were in the right. The laws of the USA were acting in opposition to some of the founding documents of this country. Many of them cleverly snuck in religious references to their arguments, but that argument was a social argument regarding a matter of US policy and law. It was against the rights of the African Americans to treat them in the way they were bing treated. All men are created equal.

What's perhaps most confusing about the homosexuality "issue" in today's society is that it is once again a political issue on the state side with a lot of religious rhetoric thrown back and forth. Who decides the rules for the country and states? The founding documents and then instances of precedents and bills passed in Congress. Who decides the rules for the church? The church, in whatever way each church chooses to rule itself.

The UMC has a way of going about this. Prayerfully, spiritually, and Biblically: the Book of Discipline is decided on. It's decided on by a vote. Which means that a MAJORITY of the people in the UMC elected delegates who decided to keep the current BOD language regarding homosexuality that existed prior. To break these rules, knowingly, is more than just to say "you are wrong", it is to say "your interpretation of the Biblical scriptures doesn't count because progress must be made." I personally believe that God's grace is available for ALL. The difference is: I don't see where this instance changes that that much.

Then there is the part about Amy's agreement with the UMC. Rosa Parks didn't make any agreement with the US. Because the whole situation of Civil Rights was born out of oppression at the start, it's not even fair to say that agreement was based on taxes and public services rendered. But Amy did agree to something. And the church agreed to something. The fact that Amy was a homosexual was something she knew about. And she broke the rules.

Which is why I think that the slap on the wrist of 20 days does nothing more than show others that they can do the same thing, if they're willing to take the penalty. This opens up a whole new world of interest. Had it been a stronger penalty, two things might have worked better (for all involved): the Discipline (and the inherent Bible-based decisions that have to come from that) might have been put to the use that it exists for, and the Biblical interpretations of all involved would actually have been dealt with in a way that made all feel like their voices were heard. What this might encourage (and to note, may or may not be good or bad...history gets defined by the "winners") is a whole bunch of pastors who believe so strongly in one idea that they're willing to break the covenant they made with the church. To me, that's a big idea. Biblically, breaking covenants is looked down upon. I must be clear: I think is is very, very different than Rosa Parks.

The Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence are very clear in (most of) their language. The Bible really isn't. It was written by many many people over a long period of years; many of which seem to, at times, have different ideas about discipleship, salvation, grace, and faith. To make it worse, church history is even more messed up than the US's history is. It is because of this that we are at this juncture today.

One thing is clear to me, though: in this church trial, no one really wins.

-B

The New Apple Campus

Yesterday, the day after his WWDC presentation in San Francisco, Steve Jobs went before the city council in Cupertino to present the plans for their new campus, not too far from the current one. The whole presentation is below. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtuz5OmOh_M&]

The council only asked for two things, really: Free wifi and an Apple Store.

Steve had two responses: "We pay taxes, and the city should provide free wifi" and "We're not sure the traffic is here for an Apple store."

Steve knows his stuff, has his opinions, and isn't afraid to speak the truth.

But how about the campus? Awesome, right?

-B

If I Were To End The World...

I look forward to seeing you all on Sunday. We'll meet for church, catch up for a few minutes, laugh and joke, maybe go out to lunch, and then we'll celebrate that the world hasn't ended. Or, we'll cry because we haven't been included in the rapture. These peeps that have been saying that the rapture will occur on the May 21 and then the end of the world will be on October 21 aren't reading the same Bible I am.

It has got me thinking though, what would I do if I were these people?

I'd be so convinced that the end of the world is coming that I'd want to tell people. I'd plan out an awesome Saturday lunch with friends and then retreat to my home. I'd probably lie down in bed and hope to be taken in my sleep.

But...what would happen when the stroke of midnight struck? Would I get worried? Would I call my fellow church members? Would I call my adversaries? Would I try to figure out if I had just missed the mark, or would I think I had been left behind? How would I show my face in public again?

I'd see two ways out:

• Mass suicide with all who think the way I do.
• Go in to hiding.

(I struggle deeply with the concept of suicide. It's a rough thing that has plagued our world for all of time. It's extremely sad and unfortunate.)

So, I think I'd have to go with hiding. After all, Osama hid in plain sight for ten years.

I think I'd take my church members and go into hiding. I'd secure some random island that no one knew about, figure out a way to get myself, my family, and all my friends there. Then I'd live there until people forgot that I had proclaimed the end of the world and judged them prematurely.

Yeah, hiding would be the only way to keep the news cameras and late night talk shows from taunting and stalking me.

After it had all been planned, I'd probably read over the plans.

I'd think about it, pray about it, and then decide that it sounded like a lot of work.

I'd probably just go ahead and on May 20th tell the world that I'd been making it all up.

Then, I'd go back to the Bible, read it, and decide that the world was actually going to end at a time unknown to man. I'd probably decide that Jesus's message needed to be spread more than ever. But not for the sake of the souls of the "saved."

I'd decide that Jesus's message needed to be spread in a way that eradicated poverty.

I'd decide that Jesus's message needed to be spread in a way that accepted those who has never been accepted.

I'd decide that Jesus's message needed to be spread in a way that showed the world the beauty of the resurrection.

I'd decide that Jesus's message was not modernity's "heaven" but rather, Jesus's "salvation."

Yeah, I think that if I was to decide that the world was going to end, that'd probably be how it'd play out.

We've got to rid the world of the Christianity that is so convinced that it is all about us.

I hope the world ends, because when it does, the pains of the world will no longer be, pain.

Maybe then, the beatitudes will finally come to life in a way that our Church could not accomplish.

-B

"Obama Thinks Jesus Is Nuts."

Bill Maher talks about how  he is a non-Christian, just like most Christians. Beware of the foul language, it is Bill Maher.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giVXvveef8Y]

While his rhetoric makes logical sense, I think he is targeting the part of the Christian body that won't watch his show and might never agree with him.  The "hippy" Christians already agree with him and...probably aren't watching his show either.

His point about Obama I thought was most interesting, as Obama has to be a politician first and foremost, probably above his faith.  He has to get Scripture to his phone every morning so that the Right will continue to tolerate him while he also has to go after America's enemies...because, well, he is the President.

But really, who is Bill Maher to talk about accountability of Christians?

Oh, yeah, that's right...this isn't accountability, it is just more of his campaign against faith.

-B

Thanks to Chad Holtz for sharing.

Mothers' Day

Today is Mothers' Day. Despite the iPad deciding that it ought to be "Mother's Day", I think that that spelling and punctuation personalizes it too much. Today is not just a day for your mother, but for all mothers, everywhere. Today, specifically, I reflect on my grandmother.

I was one of those fortunate people in life who got four grandmothers. Better yet, I got to actually meet three of them.

My mom's mother passed away when my mom and her sister were young. Because of that, I was able to have my grandfather's new wife (whom he married prior to my birth) as a grandmother, plus my dad's mother, plus my original grandmother, plus my great-aunt who I call "Nana" who has been just like a grandmother to me through these 24 years of my life.

I choose, today, to reflect on the grandmother that I never met.

One of the neat things about human history is that the incredible teachers throughout the ages are sometimes not even known for their personal work, instead...they are known for their teachings, passed down from person to person. If you are familiar with Rob Bell, you'll be familiar with his "dust of the Rabbi" nooma video. This concept has helped progress in our world since the beginning. The goal: become like your teacher.

Therefore, I can only see the grandmother I never met through the lens of others. I see my grandmother through her children. I see her through her family members. I see her through her husband. I see her through the legacy that she left. Though I remember hearing stories time and again about her, I remember her through those people that she left behind.

Cancer is a cruel thing that has taken lives of loved ones of every reader of this reflection. We can't really defeat it (although we are getting better) and treatment often leaves those forced to live with it with a weak immune system and a shorter lifespan. Cancer took the life of my grandmother, before I ever got to meet her.

Fortunately, she left people around. Se left people who carried the love and affection for the world that she did. She left people who were willing to tell story after story about her and the impact that she made on their lives.

I am so grateful for those she left behind.

Humans leave tracks in other humans. Humans make an impact on others and that impact is lived out in the lives of those that person ones in contact with.

If that statement is true, then perhaps my best way to see and experience my grandmother is through her daughter, my mom.

I've seen the love and affection of my grandmother through my mom throughout the years. My mom has always been quick to right me in my wrongs, but always have the loving hand to hold me when I needed it. My mom has been a moral voice in my life, and encouraged me to stay on the right path, even when the other path was "cooler" or seemed more fun. My mom was there to help bail me out of science projects that would have been a visual disaster. My mom was there to help me talk through my opinions before I passed judgment on anyone. My mom was there to suggest the right things, while not forcing me one way or another. My mom was always there to smile. Especially in the times that I needed it.

One of the greatest influences in my life has been my mom.

Love is a gift from God. And, thankfully, God has a remarkable way of passing down that love through generations. I see more clearly now why my mother misses her mother.

She got all of that from her.

What a blessing I have been given, to simply to have witnessed love manifested in this way.

-B