I’m writing this blog post, as I now always do, on my iPad. It’s a typical piece of technological brilliance by the man who co-founded the computer company I have been spellbound by since I was a boy, the man who ultimately led it to world domination, and who is now gone. I wasn’t surprised to hear Steve Jobs had died – when he retired from Apple it was clear the cancer had returned and wouldn’t go away again. My sadness at his passing though is based on two things: his premature death at a still youthful 56, and the terrible loss of a creative genius who changed everything. I have it on reliable authority that he was monstrous to work for, Apple on his watch had very little regard for the environment, and there are suicides of Chinese workers whose blood is very much on Jobs’ hands. I can’t forget either that the App Store is highly censorious, nor that the corporation’s product PR campaigns had most recently become so manipulative they’d almost lapsed into self-parody, and increasingly to the detriment of their customers.

Yet I am writing this on an iPad, some of you may read it on an iPhone or an iMac or MacBook, and pretty much all of you use iTunes now. I may talk about this post later on with my partner on FaceTime, and I’d like to invite as many of you as would like to come to an photography exhibition I’m taking part in later this month – all the photos were taken on iPhones. Jobs revolutionised music, film (Pixar was his baby), home & mobile computing, telephony, photography and countless other means by which we now relate to each other. Almost every aspect of the digital age you’re taking part in now had something to do with him. His detractors clearly make valid points, but I choose not to eulogise a person merely by the bad choices they made in their lives. He had blood on his hands, yes, but Steve Jobs also made countless people very happy indeed, and it wasn’t down to the self delusion often cited by his detractors (yet never really proven).

His Commencement address to Stanford University in 2005 has been widely quoted in the last couple of days. You can read the transcript here, and can see it all in the video at the top of this piece. I’d like to offer this quote:

No one wants to die. Even people who want to go to heaven don’t want to die to get there. And yet death is the destination we all share. No one has ever escaped it. And that is as it should be, because Death is very likely the single best invention of Life. It is Life’s change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new. Right now the new is you, but someday not too long from now, you will gradually become the old and be cleared away. Sorry to be so dramatic, but it is quite true.

Your time is limited, so don’t waste it living someone else’s life. Don’t be trapped by dogma — which is living with the results of other people’s thinking. Don’t let the noise of others’ opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary.

Despite your failings, thanks Steve for bringing some joy and innovation to a disenchanted world.

Related posts:

1. Farewell to the Space Shuttle I must confess to shedding a few tears here. I’m...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The current paranoid climate about Christianity is continuing:

Related posts:

1. For God’s Sake! Blasphemy laws by the back door? You decide. From the...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

From the BBC:

Children of asylum seekers continue to be held at the Dungavel detention centre despite a coalition promise to end the practice.

A Pakistani woman, Sehar Shebaz, and her eight-month-old daughter Wanya were detained after reporting to officials in Glasgow on Monday.

A spokesman for the immigration minister Damian Green said the current system must stay in place for now.

He said the Home Office had to consult on a replacement.

I can’t help but wonder whether, because this was a Liberal Democrat policy, there was no plan devised on how to prevent children of ‘failed’ asylum seekers being incarcerated. After all the likelihood was they wouldn’t be in government, yet here we are. I don’t understand to this day why ‘failed’ asylum seekers (and Blair jury rigged the system early last decade to make sure there were a lot more of them) should be incarcerated – I really don’t – and simply not locking any of them up would be the most humane solution. After all ‘failed’ asylum seekers haven’t been convicted of a crime. But seeing as that’s hardly likely to happen under a Tory-led government, we’ll have to wait and see on the replacement Green comes up with.

From Channel 4 News:

Pakistanis Abid Naseer and Ahmed Faraz Khan, both 23, who were detained by police as part of Operation Pathway in the north-west of England in April last year, took their cases to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Siac) in London. The commission today upheld their appeals.

However, Channel 4 News has learned that both men will now be subject to control orders, restrictions signed by the home secretary for the purpose of “protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism”.

The Liberal Democrats’ Freedom Bill explicitly repeals the inhuman practice of control orders, with the logical assumption that our courts can handle the challenges of modern terrorism and the presumption that the rule of law is paramount. As the Lib Dems’ website puts it:

We should put our trust in them [courts & criminal justice system] and not rely on something as unfair as labelling people terrorists and subjecting them to a range of draconian punishments without ever charging them or trying them.

And that’s the point here. Where’s the evidence? Where’s the fair trial to prove their guilt? How can we live with a system which declares someone a terrorist in secret, and without the right of reply, and then confines them to house arrest? It may very well be true that both men are indeed terrorists, but I’d much rather live in a society that tried them on the same terms as everyone else; to suggest Islamic terror suspects are somehow different is palpably absurd after all. It’s all well and good that the new government has changed policy on ID cards and other, perhaps easier civil liberties issues to tackle, but it’s already time to put its money where its mouth is on others.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

When Christians, Jews and others feel that the ideology of human rights is threatening their freedoms of association and religious practice, a tension is set in motion that is not healthy for society, freedom or Britain. Rather than regard the Pope’s remarks as an inappropriate intervention, we should use them to launch an honest debate on where to draw the line between our freedom as individuals and our freedom as members of communities of faith. One should not be purchased at the cost of the other.

It’s the same logic which Lillian Ladele and others have tried to justify, but he masks it in the language of human rights. But look how he misuses it:

We all have an interest in freedom, the freedom to act differently from others. Indeed, at the core of human rights is a religious proposition: that we are all, regardless of colour, creed or culture, in the image of God.

No. At the core of human rights is a proposition that we’re all equally deserving of fundamental dignity and rights. It’s a secular argument, which presumes that we’re all entitled to the same treatment before civil law, which in turn should protect those things equally for everyone, and under all circumstances. So when he suggests that human rights threaten freedom of religion he’s operating under an entirely false premise. Human rights don’t threaten the right to religious association, but they do presume that no organisation or association has the right to discriminate against people for being gay. And religion is far from fundamentally predicated on the right to discriminate, which Ratzinger clearly believes to be the case. The government ultimately remains short sighted in having allowed this clash to happen, and to continue. Having equality legislation which equates inherent characteristics such as age  or gender with the imagined quality of belief makes a mockery of equality. Human rights are not about justifying discrimination or legitimising bigotry.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.