In the process of death, it is often that those surrounding the dying or recently deceased will romanticize or flat-out whitewash that person--especially if it is a person that they already admire for things that have nothing to do with their personality--such as in the case of Steve Jobs.
During an argument with my parents, I discounted Steve Jobs as an inspiration because while he was good at making shiny gadgets that don't do very much (I am talking about the fairly totalitarian third-party app policies, such as the removal of Google's VoIP service a few years ago, and, more relevant, the lack of a donation system in apps for charities), his record for using his money for public good is rather "thin"1.
His defenders claim that he may have donated to social causes privately, but I don't find this convincing because he was a man beloved by millions, and really the first person (this is why I should like him) to make those damned hipsters look like the hypocrites they are. Think about it: Steve Jobs, beloved by the public, could have used his fame and fortune to do enormous good. Pick a cause--any cause--and his fans and followers would have solved it instantly. But curiously, he didn't do that, despite having ample opportunity2.
Bono claimed that he donated anonymously to Project RED, and in the 80s, Jobs set up a philanthropic organization, but that quickly shut down because "[he] didn't have time"3.
But look at what I said before, about how charities don't have donation systems in their apps. If Steve Jobs really cared about philanthropy, about social responsibility, wouldn't he at least have opened the doors to non-profit organizations on the most popular platform in the industrialized world? From this view, despite claims to the contrary--that in his death his estate may donate his fortune--there is no indication that he cared about anything but shiny objects and money.
The amount of attention and praise Steve Jobs is receiving is inversely proportionate to the amount of good he did as a person. Sure, he founded Apple, but Apple isn't dead; Steve Jobs, the person, is.
What matters to me when considering what he has to say is how much he did. During the last years of his tenure at Apple and his life, he traveled a dangerous road by cordoning off his technology, strictly regulating what could and could not interact with his devices.
In studying for the CompTIA A+ Certification exams, I learned that the computing industry took off and became what it is today precisely because those myriad technology companies had the foresight to share their technology for the betterment of everyone involved, which led to industry-wide standards and more freedom for consumers to mix and match computer peripherals and components. This is why I can build computers from scratch.
But none of this is true for Steve Jobs or Apple today, and it is ironic to me that a man so responsible for restricting technology is idolized--dare I say, worshiped--by people who claim to value freedom.
No, I don't feel compelled to join in worshiping Steve Jobs for two reasons: 1) The long-term impact of his isolated technology will have a detrimental effect on the greater industry precisely because of its restrictions, which may or may not result in the rest of the computing industry following suit, which means an Internet that is less free, less versatile, and more expensive. Imagine using a Windows OS and only being able to install pre-approved software! How many games and Open-Source applications like Firefox would be lost!? 2) Steve Jobs' lack of a record of social responsibility and philanthropy immediately discredits him as an inspirational figure.
1) http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/record-thin-on-steve-jobss-philanthropy/2011/10/06/gIQA3YKKRL_story.html
2) http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/08/29/the-mystery-of-steve-jobss-public-giving/
3) http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2011/08/yes-you-can-think-less-steve-jobs-not-being-philanthropist/41885/
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Why Are They So Desperate For Christie?
Just yesterday, NJ governor Chris Christie clarified what New Jerseyans have known all along: He isn't running for President1. But I can't seem to figure out why it is, exactly, that they think he could run in the first place. The conditions governing Christie's potential as a candidate in the current Republican field perfectly illustrates exactly what the Republican party is, and those who wish he would run are trying as best they can to ignore the fact that their party is inherently broken.
In my last article, I described how audience members cried "Let him die!", cheered Perry's record number of executions, and finally booed a gay service member, all without comment from the candidates themselves (Santorum claims that he couldn't hear the boos, but I think he's lying). Some doubt that the audiences at these debates constitutes the "base", that they are not representative of the larger GOP electorate, but I disagree. What one has to understand about the Republican party is that it consistently chases after the lowest common denominator: The least educated and the most vulnerable, the most terrified and the most xenophobic; the Republican party appeals to the very worst in all of us.
If you disagree with that, I present to you the current presidential lineup: Michele Bachmann, who, nearly everyone agrees, is categorically insane. Rick Perry, a demagogue who hates cancer, and, as Brit Hume remarked, "threw up all over himself." Perry's administration in Texas is so incompetent that it had to pray to solve problems because his state is on fire (the prayer session, as it turned out, did nothing). Rick Santorum is vociferously homophobic and has a "Google problem" because of it. Herman Cain, who absolutely hates Muslims, doesn't like to read. Newt Gingrich cheated on his wife multiple times while claiming to be a "Christian", and trips over himself in debates. Mitt Romney is a Mormon (the evangelicals HATE Mormons), and appears inauthentic generally; nobody trusts anything he says. Romney is currently believed to be the frontrunner. Jon Huntsman had to put "Call me crazy, but..." before announcing that he listens to scientists on global warming, and believes evolution to be true. That alone is enough to cut him out of the race. Ron Paul is the only candidate who has a shot at being the President in an effective capacity, but hardly anyone pays attention to anything he says but pot-smoking anarchists. The greater media establishment is so terrified of dealing with difficult questions that it is easier for them (as well as the greater American public) to simply pretend that Ron Paul does not exist.
Finally, I present the long period between 2008-2010 in which the Republican establishment was infatuated with Sarah Palin, whom everyone has since admitted is basically an idiot. She still possesses a small base of fans, and the media is still watching her like they watch the groundhog to know how long winter will last.
Given this environment, how could someone who is articulate, intelligent, bombastic, and tolerant (Christie nominated a Muslim to the State Supreme Court2!) have a chance? He doesn't, and he probably knew it. The fact that they came to him so desperately--that they hounded him--speaks either to their delusion regarding their own party, or to their desire to fix it, which a political candidate cannot do alone.
Moderate Republicans can only marvel at their party's descent into lunacy, but as Paul Krugman once pointed out, this was an evolution that occurred only because nobody realized it was happening. Glenn Beck was a clown, yes, but with no one on the right devoted to calling him a clown, to refuting the bizarre conspiracy theories fed continually to people who largely didn't know any better in a way that they could understand, he was allowed to thrive.
Doing nothing does not make extremism go away. I am often told that the Christian Right is "just a fringe", that it isn't representative of what "most people" believe, but with polls stating that belief in Creationism to hover around 50% for a decade, for gay marriage to be such a divisive issue, for Birtherism to become dogma for a major political party even for a time, can we really call it a fringe?
What is the reason for this insanity, anyway? Why stoke up baseless fears about a rival candidate? Well, who has the money? Look to Wisconsin, in which Scott Walker fabricated an economic crisis in his state to disenfranchise public unions. Look to Michigan, in which boundless power was given to Emergency Financial Managers. Look at the Occupy Wall Street protests that are happening right now. Look at Congress, which hasn't done a single thing since 2010. Who has the money?
The entire Republican party is focused on preserving the status quo in the face of the hardships of those who were wronged by the actions of the few in 2008. This is the reason for the distractions and the apparent stupidity: They got their money (our money via TARP, which, to be fair, is largely paid back), and all they need to do to keep the cash rolling in (our cash, because there is a finite amount of money in the economy, and our jobs--our futures--were all collateral) is to prevent us from holding them accountable at all costs. The damage to the political landscape doesn't matter, even the global economy doesn't matter; the only thing that matters is that they stay on top.
Why hasn't the CFPB been in the news lately? In Elizabeth Warren's interview on The Daily Show, she said that if it isn't talked about in the open, it will die. I still don't know, after about a year, if that essential agency has any teeth. Why is that?
1) http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/chris-christie-not-running-for-president/
2) http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/14/nyregion/14christie.html
In my last article, I described how audience members cried "Let him die!", cheered Perry's record number of executions, and finally booed a gay service member, all without comment from the candidates themselves (Santorum claims that he couldn't hear the boos, but I think he's lying). Some doubt that the audiences at these debates constitutes the "base", that they are not representative of the larger GOP electorate, but I disagree. What one has to understand about the Republican party is that it consistently chases after the lowest common denominator: The least educated and the most vulnerable, the most terrified and the most xenophobic; the Republican party appeals to the very worst in all of us.
If you disagree with that, I present to you the current presidential lineup: Michele Bachmann, who, nearly everyone agrees, is categorically insane. Rick Perry, a demagogue who hates cancer, and, as Brit Hume remarked, "threw up all over himself." Perry's administration in Texas is so incompetent that it had to pray to solve problems because his state is on fire (the prayer session, as it turned out, did nothing). Rick Santorum is vociferously homophobic and has a "Google problem" because of it. Herman Cain, who absolutely hates Muslims, doesn't like to read. Newt Gingrich cheated on his wife multiple times while claiming to be a "Christian", and trips over himself in debates. Mitt Romney is a Mormon (the evangelicals HATE Mormons), and appears inauthentic generally; nobody trusts anything he says. Romney is currently believed to be the frontrunner. Jon Huntsman had to put "Call me crazy, but..." before announcing that he listens to scientists on global warming, and believes evolution to be true. That alone is enough to cut him out of the race. Ron Paul is the only candidate who has a shot at being the President in an effective capacity, but hardly anyone pays attention to anything he says but pot-smoking anarchists. The greater media establishment is so terrified of dealing with difficult questions that it is easier for them (as well as the greater American public) to simply pretend that Ron Paul does not exist.
Finally, I present the long period between 2008-2010 in which the Republican establishment was infatuated with Sarah Palin, whom everyone has since admitted is basically an idiot. She still possesses a small base of fans, and the media is still watching her like they watch the groundhog to know how long winter will last.
Given this environment, how could someone who is articulate, intelligent, bombastic, and tolerant (Christie nominated a Muslim to the State Supreme Court2!) have a chance? He doesn't, and he probably knew it. The fact that they came to him so desperately--that they hounded him--speaks either to their delusion regarding their own party, or to their desire to fix it, which a political candidate cannot do alone.
Moderate Republicans can only marvel at their party's descent into lunacy, but as Paul Krugman once pointed out, this was an evolution that occurred only because nobody realized it was happening. Glenn Beck was a clown, yes, but with no one on the right devoted to calling him a clown, to refuting the bizarre conspiracy theories fed continually to people who largely didn't know any better in a way that they could understand, he was allowed to thrive.
Doing nothing does not make extremism go away. I am often told that the Christian Right is "just a fringe", that it isn't representative of what "most people" believe, but with polls stating that belief in Creationism to hover around 50% for a decade, for gay marriage to be such a divisive issue, for Birtherism to become dogma for a major political party even for a time, can we really call it a fringe?
What is the reason for this insanity, anyway? Why stoke up baseless fears about a rival candidate? Well, who has the money? Look to Wisconsin, in which Scott Walker fabricated an economic crisis in his state to disenfranchise public unions. Look to Michigan, in which boundless power was given to Emergency Financial Managers. Look at the Occupy Wall Street protests that are happening right now. Look at Congress, which hasn't done a single thing since 2010. Who has the money?
The entire Republican party is focused on preserving the status quo in the face of the hardships of those who were wronged by the actions of the few in 2008. This is the reason for the distractions and the apparent stupidity: They got their money (our money via TARP, which, to be fair, is largely paid back), and all they need to do to keep the cash rolling in (our cash, because there is a finite amount of money in the economy, and our jobs--our futures--were all collateral) is to prevent us from holding them accountable at all costs. The damage to the political landscape doesn't matter, even the global economy doesn't matter; the only thing that matters is that they stay on top.
Why hasn't the CFPB been in the news lately? In Elizabeth Warren's interview on The Daily Show, she said that if it isn't talked about in the open, it will die. I still don't know, after about a year, if that essential agency has any teeth. Why is that?
1) http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/chris-christie-not-running-for-president/
2) http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/14/nyregion/14christie.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)