New blog: Big Family Wisdom

I’m not necessarily retiring Phil’s Blog. But I’ve got a topic that I’m determined to learn about, and to share the knowledge I gain: Big Family Wisdom.

Read it at http://BigFamilyWisdom.wordpress.com, or follow it @BigFamilyWisdom on Twitter.

The Differences between Glory and PR

In a nutshell: Motivation, Justice, and Truth.

Motivation
A PR rep is someone who is motivated by selfishness. What they are paid, or what favors they will get, is the only reason they promote their products.

A worshipper of God has a selfless motivation – the desire to see God receive glory, and nothing else.

Justice
Money is spent on PR and advertising for products whether they deserve the attention or not. As is commonly known, sometimes the company that spends the most on advertising has the least-deserving product.

Giving God glory, on the other hand, is truly justice served. There is no thing, and no person, more deserving of glory than God. None, in fact, even comes close. To give anyone or anything else glory that belongs to God is an injustice and a moral travesty.

Truth
PR representatives are held to truth only by the law. And law is not all-encompasing – there are loopholes and gray areas in the law that PR reps and advertisers know well, and navigate easily. So there is always “spin” in advertisements of any kind, and usually some question about intentional omissions or outright lies.

Glory given to God, on the other hand, is always understated. We don’t have the words to describe, nor even minds to comprehend the glory God deserves. Whatever pitiful utterances and vocalizations we can produce as praise, He is humble and gracious to accept. However far we fall, or misguided we are, God is still kind enough to consider our intent as we live lives for His honor.

This article is not intended as a slam on Matthew Paul Turner, who humorously asserts (and proves daily on his blog) that Jesus needs new PR. But I think we as Christians do need to remember that giving God glory is not the work of a PR rep or an advertiser. It is a much higher calling than that, and one deserving our full-time attention in every activity we pursue. And it is one I have not remembered nearly well enough.

Censorship on art: a STIFLING impact?

Slashdot covered a recent blog post claiming that censorship stifles artristry.

I disagree.

Although I am myself not an artist, I have professional experience with what I consider a very close analog: mandated development tools in an enterprise IT environment.

While no developer really likes being told what tools/languages to use, I have found that it is the younger and less-skilled that are most vocal. The more experienced programmers just expect such arbitrary restrictions, and the ensuing difficulties. The better programmers realize that most programming problems can be solved in almost any programming language. And both groups understand that the customer is always right.

How does this apply to art and censorship? Younger and less-capable artists whine and cry because they’re either unable to express themselves within censorship limits, or they’re accustomed to the unrealistic anything-goes environment of their art college and are balking at the real world of rules and restricted freedoms.

Childen growing up are constantly whining over the ever-increasing responsibilities thrust upon them as their abilities grow. I was quite disappointed to see the same whining in myself as I complained about the tools and coding standards being imposed upon me. While I haven’t quite grown past that phase of professional development, I at least am now aware of it and am working through it.

But my industry and training are of an engineering and problem-solving nature. I was able (evntually) to view the restrictions as a challenge to be solved. Art is a much more emotional and expressive industry. So I suspect that the artists are seeing this as a professional insult. I would not be surprised to find them complaining about any imposed restriction or limit, however sensible or low-impact.

I would encourage these artists to view these censorship rules as a challenge to be overcome, to help them grow professionally. I would also suggest that they learn to work within these new sensorship rules. In one form or another, whether imposed by goveremt of conservative corporate clients, this is the reality in which they will be expressing themselves. Crying about things you can’t change is totally non-productive, and makes you look like a child throwing a fit.

Why celebrate Good Friday?

Now, apart from the Law the righteousness of God is manifested (being witnessed by the Law and the prophets) – even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God; being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, Whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation (= “substitute to take our punishment”) in His blood through faith.

This was to demonstrate His righteousness, for in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed (before Christ); for the demonstration, I say, of the righteousness of God at this present time: That He might be

1. just, and
2. the Justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith.

Romans 3:21-27

 

For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved through His life.

Romans 5:10

 

God is the original “YEC”

This post is a response to Young Earth Creationist: Ignorance Of What You Dispute, a post featured today on WordPress‘s home page.

God is a Young Earth Creationist (“YEC”). He knows the earth was created in six days. He was there. In fact, He did the creating, making Him the very first YEC. But while the author of this article (“BGH”) seems ignorant of the inherent limitations of the physical sciences, and while his article seems to have multiple personalities, he does manage to make a good point (almost).

Logical Flaws

First and foremost, BGH does not acknowledge the God of the universe. Were everything else about his article beyond reproach, his misplaced starting point would lead him always into error.

Next, the author seems to have a hard time defining what he wants to talk about. The article’s title, intro, and conclusion decry the “young earth creationism” theory of the origin of the planet. Clearly, he’s starting-out defending the various dating techniques used for determining the age of our planet. Yet all of his bullet points (comprising the middle half of the article) seek to distance evolution – not the age of the planet – from other fields of study.

Another error in BGH’s logic is his choice for first scientific field he distinguishes from evolution: cosmology, which BGH defines as “the field that explains the origins of the universe”. It’s funny that he’s specifically excluding the age of the universe from the discussion, when it’s the age of the planet that is being discussed.

An Interesting Point

However, I must agree with BGH’s critique of the logic of many “YECs” that engage evolution in the public sphere. When the Word of God is cast as merely one’s “belief” as opposed to God’s Truth, no logic can bail-out the argument. If the YEC grants non-Biblical beliefs equal value with God’s Word, there is no point in continuing the debate. The YEC has then forfeited any right to influence either the person they’re debating or those watching from the sidelines.

The job of the Christian is not to debate science on scientific terms. To do so is to grant science the authority to be the arbiter of truth. It also implies acceptance of science’s physical limitations for the debate, a debate that is fundamentally about the existence of a spiritual God.

Instead, our arguments must begin as does the Bible, and as creation itself began: “In the beginning, God…”

MP3 on iTunes: Right format, BUT…

Well, they’ve done it. Apple has finally started selling MP3s through the iTunes Music Store (ITMS). However, they’ve driven me back to plastic CDs in the process, and they may have driven-up music piracy as well.

I just downloaded Darlene Zschech‘s excellent rendition of Agnus Dei from ITMS. I originally heard it on Pandora for iPhone. (If you don’t know what Pandora is, it’s an excellent Internet radio site.). Darlene Zschech has earned a reputation as one of the best worship leaders in the world, and this song is a wonderful example of her talent.

The Problem

So imagine my disappointment when I get to the peak of the song, worshipping right along with her, only to hear a familiar static crackle erupt in the background of the song. “Fingerprinting”, “watermarking”, or whatever you may call it, it’s still DRM, MP3-style. Just like Amazon has done with many of their MP3s.

Now, I’m no audiophile. (Carrie will gladly tell you how good my hearing is.) So this is not something the average listener is likely to miss. It certainly interrupted my enjoyment of the song, and left me wondering when I could get to a store to buy the CD.

What?

When I bought an MP3 from Amazon and found watermarking throughout the track, I forgave them the offense. I figured they had a lot of PR money riding on being the first-to-market with legal MP3 downloads. (I forgave them, but I haven’t been back. Watermarking is why.)

But Apple is known for higher-quality stuff. They have always priced their products above the competition, and have earned their keep (under Steve Jobs’ leadership) with consistently industry-leading design and customer support. I’m guessing I won’t be the only customer who feels their investment in Apple just lost some value. And with the Palm Pre just around the corner, the “fall” of ITMS forces the iPhone to stand on its own, making the Pre look that much more attractive as an upgrade.

The End Game

So where does this leave us?

Apple

In my mind, Apple is risking the monopolistic tie between the iPhone and the iTunes Music Store. If their target audience – the buyer looking for higher-quality goods – stops buying music in ITMS, there’s nothing to prevent them from switching to another phone platform like the Palm Pre or Google’s Android. Since Apple has been getting bad press lately for behavior reminiscent of Microsoft’s Bill Gates era, I hope this means they’ve got a different plan for keeping customers.

The Labels Win

I believe Apple made the switch to MP3s due to market pressure. Steve Jobs has always given lip-service to eliminating DRM, to keep the Apple faithful…well, faithful. With Amazon’s service apparently doing well, they must have felt the time was right to sign-up for MP3 offerings from iTunes. Amazon probably wasn’t too hesitant about watermarking their MP3s as long as they got to be the first to offer them.

But Apple’s acceptance of the same terms signals to me that the two best chances we had to put DRM to rest are gone, and that the labels have finally won. The labels tried everything they could – suing ISPs who allowed music to be downloaded through their network, polluting the pool of trafficked files with corrupted or watermarked versions, and even suing their own customers in an attempt to stop the slow march of progress. But now, with the cooperation of both Amazon and Apple, the labels have managed to destroy the quality of purchased downloads from the two biggest legal sources online.

In other words, the labels have won. High-quality music can no longer be downloaded legally.

The Customers Lose

Sadly, I will go back to buying CDs. With the labels’ victory, ripping purchased CDs becomes (again) the only way I can hear the music on my iPhone as the artist intended it to be heard.

Thank you Preston Gralla

Thank you for trying Linux. Twice. Even though you had trouble.

Thank you for seeking-out and listening to the advice of people who are experienced Linux users. And thank you even more for having used your literary talent to combine and “translate” their advice into an article readable by non-technical Windows users.

But thank you most of all for using your time and talent to promote Linux. You written a fair evaluation of Linux for prospective converts, and that will help to get more people to try Linux. But just as importantly, you have also journaled the first-impressions of the uninitiated. That is something many of us long-time Linux users can neither remember nor correctly describe. Those who wish to fix the problem must first understand the problem, and you have done the Linux community a service by describing that problem well.

Amazon Kindle: Bad Solution to a Make-believe Problem

Why Buy It?

Downsides:

• $350!!!
• Lose your Kindle, lose your library.
• You can’t resell a Kindle book. (Or, for that matter, give it away.)

Upsides:

• The books are (marginally) cheaper

Why Sell It?

But let’s look at why the publishing industry wants everyone to use them:

• DRM on books prevents resale and forces all would-be readers to buy new
• Eliminates publishing and distribution costs per purchased title, which more than makes-up the reduced price of the book. (And we’ll never know if Amazon raises the price of paper books when the Kindle versions are released released.)
• Presents the technological possibility of revising books in-place after publish or purchase to reduce PR impact of errata, or possibly even to change the book’s content.

I Just Don’t Have Time

It takes discipline to free-up time, and discipline to use the freed time well. So if I’m lamenting my lack of time for something that’s important, I have only myself to blame.

Just because God taught me that this morning doesn’t mean that I like it.

The Bachelor Finale

Fans may pity Melissa. And with good reason. I, however, pity Jason.

He’s clearly agonizing over the right thing to do. He hates how he’s treated Melissa. He can’t figure-out what went wrong after the final rose ceremony. I think he spends the most time, though, wondering what went wrong AT the final rose ceremony.

The thing he’s missing – and I think he’s aware it’s missing – is a guide to what the right thing to do would be.

And for that, I pity him.

People we talk to in our everyday lives seem to have life all together. They’re just as happy as we who follow Christ. They’re not confused, they’re in command of their lives, and they exude confidence.

But many of these people also deny any objective standard for right living. Jason clung desperately to the notion that there is a right way and a wrong way to treat a girl. It was such a rare and unique and noble characteristic that I believe it was what so endeared him to his fans. And having treated Melissa wrongly – even though he intended well – was what tore him up so much. The problem, though, was that he rejected the true condition of his fallen human heart. The very thing he looked to for guidance was failing him, and he was grieved at the betrayal.

The folks around us may have a big-enough worldview for their own everyday existence. But it doesn’t take a big event to disprove their assumptions and leave them in denial or – as in Jason’s case – despair.

Those of us who know Jesus must speak-up at such times. We must speak, not with condescension or chastisement, but with news of the God Who created all things, and Who upholds all things by the word of His power. Only Jesus can both acknowledge the failings of humanity and simultaneously offer hope of forgiveness.