This weekend, a friend of my wife’s was gushing about how her church had just started a program to help the poor in Uganda: they take unwanted clothes from Ugandans, ship them over to the US so her church-members can sew them back together using Christian-themed patches, sell the clothes to people in the US, and then send most of the proceeds back to poor Ugandans.

“Why not help the Ugandans setup a factory to do the clothes repair in Uganda, so they can sell the clothes to other Ugandans (or ship them themselves) for a profit?” I asked.

She looked at me like such a thought had never entered her mind. Why wasn’t I proud that her church was helping the poor, helpless Ugandans?

Because they’re not helpless. Because teaching someone to fish is always superior to giving them a fish. Because what her church is doing is not helping anything other than their own sense of self-righteousness.

Christians in the 19th century were a progressive force: they pushed for the abolition of slavery, they setup workshops for the poor, they endowed schools and universities teaching up-to-date science and technology.

The current crop of Christian evangelicals could not be more different from those charitable pioneers: they want to take rights away from homosexual couples, cheer when Muslims are discriminated against, and want science muzzled.

So here’s my challenge to any evangelical, fundamentalist Christian: What are you doing to make the world more free, to add to the body of human knowledge, to increase the prosperity of your fellow man?

Everybody’s got ‘em. Here’s mine:

What Will Change Radically:

1. Ebooks. In 2009 they really started taking off. With the release of Apple’s Tablet, the Nook finally appearing in stores, and Borders launching their own reader/ebook service, the world of publishing will finally start lurching into the 21st century.
2. The OS Wars. With the release of Google’s Chrome OS netbooks, coupled with the increasing market share of Android on smartphones, the internet revolution will be complete. Mac vs Windows won’t matter as much to users anymore, since everything important (email, documents, reading) will either work on their phone or in their browser. Only coders and gamers will care about platforms as such anymore, since you’ll still need a full-featured OS to develop or play on.
3. Online Publishing. The Nook and the Kindle are already experimenting with subscription-based magazine and newspaper content. This market will grow to replace the paper-based income streams for most newspapers and magazines. Some customers will still want their ad-based online content, and some will still want a physical copy, but most will switch over to the convenience of electronic versions. Publishers will also move in this space when they see it’s a way to replicate their old revenue streams in the new electronic age.

What Will Stay The Same:

1. Sci-fi/Fantasy Publishing. While everyone else starts to pile on the ebook wagon, genre presses (especially the small ones, that could benefit the most from electronic distribution) will continue to take timid steps in the direction of electronic publishing, but refuse to embrace it.
2. M$ dominance. Even though Google is pulling the rug out from under Windows, sheer inertia will keep them moving forward in the marketplace for the next year or two. That, and the videogame industry.
3. Books. They won’t go anywhere. They’ll just finally be seen for what they are: 500-year-old relics that have a lot of nostalgic value, but don’t meet the needs of most people anymore.

What do you think? How far off am I?

So, Obama won the Presidential race, making me proud to be a citizen of the USA and hopeful that we can turn things around here.

But Proposition 8, the hateful law banning gay marriage and writing bigotry into the California state constitution, looks like it will pass. Continue reading →

Just got back from the voting booth. It’s my first time to vote since the dark days of ’02, and my first time to vote in California. And yes, it felt good.

If you haven’t already, head down to your local polling place and vote! Even if you’re not registered, get yourself put on a provisional ballot. Who knows, your vote could decide a close election.

In reading through an old copy of the Economist yesterday, I was struck by the magazine’s seeming schizophrenia. I could be reading an article reasonably discussing how governments could (and should) act to encourage businesses to shift to greener technologies in order to combat climate change, then turn the page to find phrases like “a strong Republican candidate for the 2008 presidency would be good for the country, and so good for the world,” or “so-and-so supports free markets, and so gets our support,” standing out without support or reasons given.

Where did the reason go? Can a magazine that pokes fun at people with knee-jerk reactions against evolution or capitalism get away with having its own verbal ticks? How can such an otherwise-reasonable-sounding magazine continue to have these serious intellectual hangups?

If we care to look at the record, truly free markets don’t seem to do so well for their societies. The much-lauded economic success of the “Asian Tiger” countries came not through pursuing free trade, but by imposing stiff trade tariffs and using government subsidies to grow native industries. Those economies–notably in South America–that swallowed the free market Kool-Aid have suffered wave after wave of bankruptcy and economic collapse.

And as the Economist itself admits, the “free market” has failed to deal with the challenge of global warming. It is up to governments–and the people voting for them–to force businesses to take up the responsibilities they would normally evade under an unfettered system.

Political candidates should be evaluated not on their party affiliation, nor even on their promises, but on their record of writing and voting on legislation. Economic ideas should be treated just as rigorously: if they fail to benefit society as a whole, they should be discarded. Clinging to the ideals of the past–whether communistic or capitalistic–is as contrary to reason as believing a ghost created the entire Earth in seven days.