Scott Bradford: Off on a Tangent

Let Me Have My Android Updates!

Posted

I really like Android, the mobile operating system developed by Google, its many partners in the Open Handset Alliance, and the open source community. It lacks the user-interface polish of the largely-defunct Hewlett-Packard (HP) WebOS, which was and remains the most user-friendly mobile operating system ever produced to-date. But Android is steadily improving in this area, and I have managed to make myself a comfortable home there—along with many other WebOS devotees who were all-but forced to abandon the platform thanks to HP’s mismanagement.

Today, I have two Android devices: the Motorola Droid 2 Global (Verizon) smartphone, and the Motorola Xoom FE tablet. They are good devices and I have few complaints. But the one issue I keep running across is the perennial failure of the manufacturers and wireless carriers to keep the Android OS up-to-date.

‘Power users’ like myself, forged in the crucible of the desktop computer, are accustomed to having new operating systems available to us shortly after their release. We install each new version of Windows, Mac OS, and/or our chosen Linux distribution on our PC’s as soon as they become available. We are the early adopters. We love getting our hands on the latest and the greatest, even if it still has some kinks that need to be worked out. We’re willing to accept some risk, complication, and annoyance in return for a seat at the cutting edge of computing. And for the entire history of general-purpose computing, there’s been nobody standing in the way of the ‘power user’ (at least when it comes to their own machines). If Microsoft released a new version of Windows, but HP or Dell or Sony somehow blocked it from being installed on the machines they had manufactured, we would be incensed! How dare they tell us what we can and can’t install on our machines?

Read more . . .

Judging People in Death

Posted

As Christians, we must recognize that we have no right to judge the final disposition of somebody’s soul. Oh, we can and should judge behaviors, and condemn sin, especially within our own ranks (cf. 1 Corinthians 5:11-13). But in the end, when somebody dies, none of us have any right to assume that they have gone to Heaven, Purgatory, or Hell. Only God can judge them in death.

Most modern Christians would agree with this sentiment, at least to a point. If I told your average modern Christian that I was certain Adolf Hitler was rotting in Hell, most would (rightfully) correct me. Jesus Christ died on the cross to forgive all human sins—even those as gruesome, horrific, and revolting as Hitler’s. It is possible that Hitler, in the very last millisecond of his earthly life, was truly repentant for what he had done. And if he was, he might not have ended up where our limited human instincts might expect. God’s forgiveness extends to the worst sins, and is contingent on nothing more than our honest contrition and repentance.

This is all well-and-good in the theoretical, talking about historical figures like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and others far removed from our lives today. Christian theology on forgiveness is a radical theology that has the potential to extend even to these monsters, so long as they seek and accept that forgiveness. But what about when it is our loved ones who die? What about cases where we mourn the death of a close relative or friend?

Read more . . .

Is It 2004 All Over Again?

Posted

Writing recently about the Republican Party presidential primaries, I spoke about how unique this cycle was in relation to other recent primary battles. It remains incredibly volatile, as the Real Clear Politics poll averages show, but at this point it is pretty safe to say that former-Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) will be victorious. Things are settling down, and now it’s really more a matter of how long it’ll be before Romney can be declared the presumptive nominee.

I wouldn’t go quite as far as the Romney campaign did when it announced that it would take an ‘act of God’ for him to lose the nomination, but it is true that there is no plausible alternative still available—for better or worse. None have survived the pro-Romney attacks of the main-stream media, which have taken the form of a constant barrage of out-of-context quotes, unverified innuendo, and largely baseless accusation against each non-Romney who rises in the polls. Former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) is the most recent victim, having been ripped to shreds for little reason other than the fact that he (like myself) is a faithful Catholic who actually believes what the Church teaches in matters of faith and morality. God forbid. Apparently only un-faithful Catholics are eligible for elective office these days.

Before Santorum, former Representative Newt Gingrich (R-GA 6th), former Governor Rick Perry (R-TX), and Herman Cain (R) had all been subjected to a similar media crusade—though admittedly, at times, with accusations and smears that had more merit than those against Santorum. Only Representative Ron Paul (R-TX 14th) has been spared this inexplicable and concerted media smearing; he has been subjected to a full-on media blackout instead.

Read more . . .

The Assault on American Liberty

Posted

We are a nation founded on certain bedrock principles. Among them are the rights guaranteed by our Bill of Rights, which include the free exercise of religion, free speech, free press, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the right not to self-incriminate. These liberties, and others like them, are non-negotiable. They are basic human rights, part of what political theorists (and theologians, for that matter) call the ‘natural law.’ A just government must be their guarantor, and I have always believed that our government is, on the whole, just.

For the first time in my life, I am not so sure any more.

I heard a lot of talk in the 2008 Presidential election cycle (and before) about the supposed erosion of civil liberties under President George W. Bush (R), with accusers often pointing to the Patriot Act and similar anti-terror laws that arose in the post-9/11/2001 world. I had concerns about certain aspects of those laws, but I also recognized the magnitude of the threat and the necessity of strong defensive action. Throughout our national history, our courts have recognized that certain encroachments on civil liberties in times of war are acceptable and even necessary.

None of Bush’s policies were particularly out-of-step with those traditions. Warrantless wiretaps of phone calls to or from overseas numbers are perfectly legal, and always have been. Military tribunals have been used to try war criminals in every war we’ve ever fought—most notably under President Franklin D. Roosevelt (D), who used them to try German saboteurs captured on U.S. soil during World War II (which was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Ex parte Quirin, 317 US 1 (1942)). Guantanamo Bay detention facilities were used to house war criminals who have no standing under our legal system or, in fact, under the Geneva Conventions either (as they do not meet the clearly-stated definition of ‘Prisoner of War’).

Read more . . .

The Grand Unification: Science and Faith

Posted
(courtesy WikiMedia Commons)

One of the greatest yet-unsolved mysteries in the scientific realm is known as the ‘Grand Unified Theory‘—the unification of a number of major theories about the basic structure of our universe. It is an important step on the way to a fully inclusive ‘Theory of Everything.’ We aren’t there yet, but we are inching closer all the time. As interesting as the topic may be, I’m here to discuss a very different kind of grand unification. Though you might not be aware of it, we are quite possibly on the verge of a grand unification of science and faith.

The common presumption these days seems to be that science and faith are somehow intrinsically incompatible with one another. Science rests on empirical evidence, experimentation, and proof. Faith rests on unverifiable (but very real) human intuitions, emotions, and natural law. But I have long argued that they are not, in fact, mutually exclusive. They can, and very often do, coexist peacefully. Those who deny this may want to engage in conversation with any of the the two-thirds of scientists who believe in God. As I have always said, these two disciplines are asking and answering different questions in different ways. We shouldn’t blindly discount either one. Both lead us to greater knowledge and deeper understanding of ourselves and the universe in-which we live.

But while many theists who worship God (in one form or another) and atheists who worship science have been busy condemning each other in the public square, yelling and screaming about how terribly misguided the other must be, a surprising thing has been happening. Much like how the various lines of scientific research into the cosmos are converging, slowly but surely, toward a Grand Unified Theory, we have likewise seen a similar convergence between some of the core doctrines of modern science and modern faith. Today, the leading edge of theoretical physics is looking more and more like what theists of various stripes have been saying all along. Once more we find that honest truth-seekers—even when they approach things in very different ways—tend to end up in nearly the same place.

Read more . . .

Scott Bradford is a writer and technologist who has been putting his opinions online since 1995. He believes in three inviolable human rights: life, liberty, and property. He is a Catholic Christian who worships the trinitarian God described in the Nicene Creed. Scott is a husband, nerd, pet lover, and AMC/Jeep enthusiast with a B.S. degree in public administration from George Mason University.