60 Minutes show on Steve Jobs

October 23, 2011

In case you missed it, here are the three segments to the piece that 60 Minutes did on Steve Jobs.  The final segment of the show discusses the iPad and its usefulness in helping people with Autism.  I am not a regular viewer of 60 Minutes, but this particular program was very well done.  I might even be persuaded to buy the biography of Steve Jobs which will hit the shelves tomorrow.  However, I’ll probably wait and read it on my Kindle (with apologies to the late Mr. Jobs). 

Part 1

Part 2

Apps for Autism


The ‘Other’ Steve Jobs

October 10, 2011

Last week I followed suit with countless others who eulogized Steve Jobs with either simple “R.I.P.’s”, or article-length pieces.  Not a week has passed yet since his death.  Yet articles are now appearing that reveal another side to the genius that was heralded last week and seemed kindly and loveable, if not a bit eccentric.  As this article notes, “a great man’s reputation can withstand a full accounting.”  And so it does, portraying a darker, less warm and fuzzy genius in Steve Jobs.

With respect to a part of the article linked to above, I have to say that on one hand, I am leery of censorship in its unbridled form. An authority that has the power to censor one type of material that might be deemed offensive to some, has the power to broaden its scope to include material that IT deems to be offensive.  The linked to article decries what might be thought of as censorship exercised by Apple via its App Store and iTunes.  Yet, limits placed on what can and cannot be installed on an iPhone or iPad via an app, places NO limitation on what can be accessed via these devices internet connectivity.  So that particular complaint in this article falls a bit short of making a credible point.  Furthermore, (at least historically) a company like Disney drew lines on what material it would allow to be presented under its brand.  I am sure there are other examples, so Apple’s policy is hardly lacking precedent.

All this said, along with what the article has to offer, I hope all the more that God did a work or regeneration in Steve Jobs life near its end, as these latest revelations and reflections confirm that he seemed to lack that, in the normal course of his life.


Yeah, me too. A requiem for Steve Jobs

October 6, 2011

I admit it, I am a slow adopter of technology.  It is a genetic predisposition that has proven to have low heritability, as my daughter is pretty consistently on the front end of embracing new gadgets.  And my son, while not nearly as aggressive as his sister, is nevertheless well ahead of me. Perhaps my son has inherited my frugality.  Leigh prefers the term “cheap” when describing this trait in me.

All that said, I have to admit that my engagement with the products of the late Steve Jobs’ brainchild Apple, Inc. is limited to just an old, now antiquated iPod and an iPhone 4.  The former has been rendered not useless, but certainly less-used by virtue of the latter, and now as of this week, the latter is on the road to obsolescence, thanks to the iPhone 4S and the inevitable iPhone 5.

Much has already been written, and I suspect that much more is yet to come about Steve Jobs.  Probably safe to assume that many of those kindly expressions are being made using the very technology that bears his imprint.  And it was from that same technology that many learned for the first time that he had died yesterday.  

Much of what I have read has focused on the genius of Steve Jobs and the amazing innovations that can be traced back to his vision for technology and consumers.  Few have focused on what really ought to concern people of faith, and people of the Christian faith in particular.  Granted, the world has lost a unique genius and we are right to mourn the loss of Jobs’ life, and to some degree the absence of his creativity applied to future products.  But my hope would be that we would grieve the probable loss of this man’s soul, more so than the loss of the gadgets that he might have been a part of delivering in the future.

It is entirely possible within the context of the mysteries of God, that God and God alone worked His sovereign, saving grace into the folds of Jobs’ life in the days, hours, or even moments before his death.  I hope that is the case.  But there was certainly nothing in the visible or audible content of Jobs’ life that would offer any particular confidence that he had earlier realized and embraced a saving faith as described in scripture.  Instead, his apparent faith was much more in conformity with secularism.  Some believe he may have been a Buddhist.

The irony is certainly not lost on me that while Jobs clearly recognized the inevitableness of death, even his own (as witnessed by his often cited commencement address at Stanford University a few years ago), he also must surely have been a part of the decision-making process that settled on the iconic Apple logo.  That logo of an apple with a bite taken out of it is the very symbol of the introduction of sin and death into the world, as described in Genesis chapter 3. 

My hope for Jobs is that in some supernatural, monergistic way, God revealed the rest of His story of redemption to Mr. Jobs, in at least the last few moments before he passed from this life, into the next.


Great. Commercial.

September 16, 2011

This is a great commercial.  And the message is exactly why I would not buy a G.M. or Chrysler product. 

Ford is smart.  With the climate of distrust in the Federal Goverment’s (read Obama adminstration) past and proposed solutions to the economic mess we are in, Ford is merely capitalizing on some unpopular facts about its American competitors to create a sellable point of difference, beyond simply the cars they make.  Furthermore, these commercials are essentially testimonials of actual customers, and are not scripted.

I can just imagine that the marketing execs had their mouths watering when they finally got someone to independently declare what thoughtful people already have in their minds.


Why limit it to the third trimester?

September 16, 2011

Last month I wrote an article about the ethical dilemma that the pro-baby killing folks are wrestling with regarding a practice known as “reduction.”  These are procedures performed in pregnancies that involve multiple babies (twins, triplets, etc.). Through selective abortion, one or more babies are killed, until the desired number remains, usually just one.  “Reduction.”  What a nice impersonal, unemotional sort of word.  But the nice word can only go so far in disguising what is going on in these procedures and they are causing all sorts of hand-wringing and heart burn among even the most ardent supporters of killing unborn babies.

Now, the legalized “killing of babies,” has taken on a new and even more comprehensive and precise meaning.  A Canadian appeals court has ruled that a mother who strangled her infant (that is, already born) son and threw his dead body over her fence into a neighbor’s yard, cannot be charged with any crime, or at least not one related to the killing of the child.  Re-read that if you like, but you probably read it correctly the first time.  A mother killed her already-born-son, and is guilty of no crime.  And get this…the judge’s logic in de-criminalizing what would otherwise be regarded as infanticide, relied on Canada’s abortion statutes that allow for killing of babies through the third trimester of pregnancy.  It appears that the good news for those who were not able to come to the decision to kill their child en utero, can now do so after he or she has been delivered.  I guess that the only remaining question, not yet adjudicated by the courts in Canada is exactly how long a mother has to exercise this frightening new privilege. 

Al Mohler has a sober and thoughtful article on this subject that is well worth the time to read.


A light of reason in an otherwise dark sea.

January 10, 2011

The New York Times is notorious and unapologetic for its liberal leanings.  It rarely even tries to portray itself as objective in its coverage of the news.

With that said, it is indeed refreshing to see at least one reasonable opinion article in the NYT published yesterday, covering the subject of the horrific shooting in Tucson, Arizona over the weekend.  Ross Douthat is a light of reason in what is otherwise a very, very, very dark sea of biased liberal thought quartered in the NYT building.  Read his outstanding article at the link below.

United in Horror – Ross Douthat

And then if you dare, read the articles, published the same day by these two hacks, who in several examples don’t even get their facts straight much less have supportable opinions.  Case in point, the assertion (by virtue of a quoted source) by Gail Collins, that the particular pistol used by Jared Laughner is used only for the purpose of killing or injuring lots of people very quickly, and not for personal protection.  The particular pistol used by Laughner is the exact same model used by law enforcement officers all around our country and probably around the world.  Seldom if ever are we made aware of police officers using their guns for the purpose of killing or injuring lots of people quickly.  What we DO hear are stories of police officers using those same guns for self-protection and the protection of the people they serve.

You can read the highly biased and factually deficient articles by Gail Collins and Paul Krugman at these links.

A Right to Bear Glocks? – Gail Collins

Climate of Hate – Paul Krugman


Aww, we just gotta save the polar bears!

September 10, 2010

Nissan introduced its “Innovation for all” campaign during the opening game of the 2010 NFL season on Thursday night.  The commercial has a significant emotional appeal, featuring a polar bear who is apparently not content to simply have his ice flow disappear because of global warming, so he strikes out, I suppose to find out why.  Afterall, that is what polar bears do.

The commercial is filled with suggestions, some pretty overt, some subtle as to what is destroying the environment, but ends with the polar bear lovingly appreciating a man who is about to get into his all-electric Nissan LEAF, which looks a bit like a slightly over grown Smart Car.  The LEAF is the car that will ultimately crush the Chevrolet Volt that Government Motors is introducing.  The LEAF will prevail because it is both more practical in terms of its mileage on single charge of its batteries, and it also costs less to purchase. 

In all seriousness, whether you agree with the idea that man is the cause of fluctuations in global temperatures or not, this really is a commercial that is well done.  Well done for the wrong reasons, but well done, nonetheless.  And, I have to say that if someone is in the market for an all-electric, mini-car, I hope you will buy this one and not the one made by GM, the nationalized car company that is ostensibly being run by a union.

As a post script, the Nissan commercial is, for me, reminiscent of the old Ad Council anti-pollution ads that ran as Public Service Announcements in the 1970’s.  Here is one in particular that I am reminded of, featuring Iron Eyes Cody.