I like gadgets. My grandfather did, too. Of course, in his time, there were a lot fewer shiny gadgets to play with, and virtually no electronic ones; but he did have the first answering machine I ever saw. I try to justify my gadget purchases with the idea that they will make my life easier, but I know a lot of the time that isn't the case. Many times they just cause frustration. But you never know if you don't try, and I love the trying part, so I don't mind experimenting with new things even if I know many of them will not work out as expected. Every so often, though, I like to stop and think about the things I have bought and ask myself whether they lived up to expectations and whether they were worth the money. Since other people may also be interesting in knowing how gadgets worked for me, and may perhaps learn from my mistakes and my successes, I thought I would post some of the results for everyone to see.
(I don't have any affiliate relationships, so I get no money if anyone buys these things. I am using stock pictures unless I can't find one.)
an adapter. Well, that was a huge disappointment. First, the tablet was auto-correcting things in the most annoying fashion. I discovered a little program that detects when you plug in an external device and asks which input method you want to use. That was a great improvement, but I kept having problems with the keyboard not being recognized. I don't know if it was a problem with the USB port or perhaps a software problem. I tried a different keyboard in the tablet and got the same results, so I don't think it was the keyboard. Perhaps it was the adapter.
In any case, at that point I gave in and bought a case with an integrated keyboard. I had thought that might be the eventual solution, but I was hoping to avoid it. The case I bought, like almost every case, uses bluetooth for connectivity, which seems like a waste but I accepted it after my experience with a USB keyboard. That setup works really smoothly. I only turn on the keyboard when I need it, which is not usually; the program asks me what input I want to use, I touch external keyboard, and I'm ready to go. (Actually, the keyboard works without explicitly selecting the external keyboard, but I think it prevents the soft keyboard from popping up every time I am on an input field.) I think the keyboard is a little smaller than standard, but I have no problem touch-typing on it. Android allows me to use alt-tab and other shortcuts that I am accustomed to on the desktop. When opened to the keyboard, the tablet sits in a slot on the case and appears to be held in magnetically, so it is easy to type in my lap. My only complaints are the ones I would have expected: it's heavier than without the keyboard, and a little awkward when I open the case fully and have a keyboard on the back of the tablet. I don't know how they would avoid those problems. I do with the case came with a vertical kickstand, especially since some programs insist on being oriented vertically. I can actually take the horizontal kickstand and turn it vertically and it stands up pretty well, so this isn't too much of an issue.
Tablet holder: I saw this little "Clamp Champion" holder and all my reasoning went out the window. It just looks so useful and neat. I have to admit that it does work in the ways it is supposed to, it's just that I don't usually need a holder for how I use it, so this has not gotten much use.
Bluetooth has completely changed that. Now when I get in the car, the phone connects to the stereo almost immediately. All I have to do is press "play" on the stereo and the book resumes from where I was. I can pause, fast forward, or rewind at any time. The only hitch was getting the phone to open the right audio app when it connected. It wants to open the system default media player, but I found a little program that allows me to choose.
This stereo is not very remarkable in itself. It is the fourth I have put in a vehicle, so I'm pretty familiar with the process now, but this is the first one I had to go in the back to work on. Apparently the external amplifier that came in our 1993 BMW did not deal well with this new radio, so I had to take it out and attach the input and output cables to a pass-through device. I had always wanted to get to the back wiring, so it was an interesting experience. Not very technically challenging, but it took some thinking to figure out how to get to the amplifier. To remove it, I had to remove one of the rear speakers, which is also attached in an interesting way. I actually had to buy more speakers just to get the pass-through device for the cables, but I haven't installed them besides one in the back because the trim is so flimsy on the car's doors that I am scared to take them off. That is the last thing missing from my stereo installation experience.
The one problem I've had with the bluetooth stereo relates to using the phone. Even if the stereo's input is not set to bluetooth, it still picks up phone calls and directs audio to itself. (I could probably turn this feature off if I looked...) The problem is that the microphone that came with the stereo broke when I was installing it, so I can hear incoming calls fine, but no one can hear me. I'm still not sure how I was supposed to get the audio cable through the opening -- maybe I wasn't -- but this is an annoyance until I figure out a solution.
Tuesday, October 13, 2015
The intersection of religion and politics is complicated, but not so complicated that we can't make some sense of it.
Some people think that "religion" means anything you want to call your religion. And while it is true that the heart of religious freedom is the right to believe whatever you want about eschatology -- the meaning of life, if you will -- this is among the least disputed aspects of religious freedom, and therefore the least interesting. No one will argue that you should have to convert to another religion to live freely in the United States. If you believe in the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster with all your heart, that is your right. If you are an atheist, that is a form of religion and no one will claim that you should be forced to believe in a god. They might wish you did, but I have not seen any serious arguments that you are required to do so.
But religion is not synonymous with whatever an individual believes about religion. "Religion" is a social phenomenon. You may have a religion that no one else shares; for example, you may believe that weekdays are holy and are intended for rest, whereas weekends are intended for work. No one will dispute your right to believe this. (They will likely dispute whether you are correct, but they won't deny your right to believe it.) The government, however, will not make many accommodations for your beliefs. If you get a job working for the government, you will be expected to come in on weekdays like everyone else. Anything else would be impractical from the government's perspective, and it isn't going to reorganize the way it does business around your beliefs.
The situation is quite different for people who, for religious reasons, prefer to work on weekdays and rest on one or both days of the weekend. Our work week is deliberately structured around their needs, and if anyone tried to change it -- for example, by shifting the workweek to a Wednesday-to-Sunday schedule and taking off on Mondays and Tuesdays -- he would be met with enormous opposition and calls of religious intolerance. And he would almost certainly back down.
This may seem a very un-spiritual way to approach religious freedom: why are people who practice mass religions and share similar beliefs allowed to influence public publicy in this way, whereas an equally sincere individual with different beliefs gets ignored? The answer is that it is not at all spiritual, and is really not intended to be (I don't think it is, anyway). It is a practical response to the fact that a large portion of society shares similar beliefs.
If you object, think of the consequences of allowing every individual view to influence public policy. Not only would it create chaos, as in the example of the scrambled work week, it would also allow anyone to apply the tag of "religion" to anything he happened to want, and who would be able to contradict him, since it is a matter of his own conscience whether he means it or not? And perhaps some people -- the most narcissistic probably -- would actually believe that their religion did require them to do things that happened to be in their own best interests. Society would be unable to function under such a system.
Another alternative would be that we could ignore everyone's religious beliefs and organize society with no account to anyone's religion. There are a couple of problems with this, however. First, who would choose the method of organization? Since we have defined atheism and every other ultimate belief as a form of religion, there would be no neutral person to decide what to do. Any organization would inevitably favour one set of beliefs over another, and that would lead to complaints and lawsuits and ultimately we would not be better off in the least. We would have to choose a system based not on a rational basis but on how to offend everyone equally, which is a fool's errand.
Second, any religion that contained a substantial membership would run afoul of the chosen organization and might refuse to participate. This might be to their own detriment, but beyond a certain size it would also be to the detriment of the government and the society. Things would be organized on two principles, one official and one non-official. Imagine if 80% of Americans celebrated Wednesay as a day of rest: how much government business would be conducted on that day? How effective would it be, since a lot of government action involves interacting with businesses and individuals, most of whom would not be willing to participate? The government would look silly for being open on a day when few people were willing to deal with it, and surely all sides of the political spectrum would call for taking Wednesdays off as a practical matter.
The poor individual finds no accommodation in this scheme. He must adapt himself to society rather than adapting society to himself. But this is the case for everyone who runs counter to society, whether on religion or economics or art or sports. We believe in your right to freedom of conscience, and you can act on your conscience how you will as long as you are not violating other laws. Government and society may make accommodations for you, but they cannot be organized around every individual's religion. The government does not take a holiday on Yom Kippur, but it is willing, I believe, to accommodate Jews on an individual basis if, say, a court date would fall on that holiday.
People seem afraid that religious freedom laws open the gates for everyone to claim anything he wants in the name of religion, but this is a fantasy. Hobby Lobby claimed a right not to be forced to provide abortifacients for its employees, a position consistent with centuries of Christian teaching and in accordance with the views of many other Americans. It is important that Hobby Lobby was already practicing its views when a new law required it to change. If it now claimed the right not to pay a minimum wage, what force would that have? There is no Christian teaching that I am aware of to support such a view, and even if they could bring forward a dozen Bible verses in their favour, that would not make it a Christian belief. Christian groups have evolved a set of beliefs over centuries and, while individuals are free to reinterpret them at will, it is not a government concern unless it falls within an established tradition. Hobby Lobby would have no case, and the people afraid that religious freedom would be used to avoid laws would have nothing to worry about.
For much the same reason, it is pointless to argue that a religion should not espouse a belief because it is not being true to its principles. It is quite legitimate, of course, to try to convince religious leaders to change their beliefs, but it is another matter entirely to claim that the religion's teachings are inconsistent with its background and therefore not subject to public accommodation. I have seen many articles in which liberals argue that the Bible is not unambiguously opposed to same-sex marriage, and therefore that religious groups should not be accommodated in their refusal to participate in same-sex marriage ceremonies. This overlooks the obvious fact that almost all Christian churches have consistently taught that marriage is purely a heterosexual institution. Even if the Bible contained verses that seemed to contradict this notion, it would not alter the historical belief of Christians. Public policy is not the place for a theology debate. I assure you that early modern Catholics were convinced that Protestants were reading the Bible all wrong and used this as a reason not to respect their religious beliefs. The situation was exactly comparable: they were not following the true Christianity, so there was no reason to allow them to practice their false beliefs. That did not work out in the end, and the attempt to do it now has the same fundamental problem (except that Christianity's teaching about marriage is much, much older than the Protestants' interpretation of Scripture in the 16th and 17th centuries, so the attack on it is even more tenuous).
The same things that protect us against arbitrary religious views on the part of individuals also protect us from groups claiming a place alongside established religions in public policy. There is no reason to believe that a government that makes concessions to one religion, such as Christianity, must make equal concessions to all religions down to the Church of Satan. While Satanists may be sincere believers, with progenitors going back centuries, there is no established tradition of a Satanist church prior to 1966 and very few members even today. If, in a hundred years, the Church of Satan comprises 2 or 3 million members and has a relatively consistent body of dogma, it may well demand and gain a place alongside established religions. I have no doubt that the Founding Fathers entertained no idea of religious toleration for Satanists, but that was because they did not exist, at least not as a movement. For the early modern Catholic Church, Protestant reformers were little better than devil-worshippers, yet they managed to reconcile to their co-existence eventually. They did not accept it until half of Europe had been Protestant for several centuries, and while the required longevity and spread of Satanism or other religions might be less today -- and while we would not burn them at the stake in the meantime -- there is a similar waiting period before it could be considered a religion worthy of accommodation in the public sphere.