A war is brewing between Universal Studios, Fox and Redbox.  There are multiple sides to this issue and it looks like things might get very ugly for Hollywood.

What is Redbox?

For those of you who don’t know, Redbox is a Coinstar owned company that rents DVDs out of an automated kiosk system.  It is projected that there will be over 22,000 of these machines by December of 2009.  Most of these kiosks are found at super-markets close to the check-out aisles.  You could say that they’re sort of a point of purchase “impulse” rent type of system.  Redbox kiosks only take credit cards and you get to rent from any one of a number of new releases for just $1.00 per day.  The only drawback is that you do have to return the movie within 24 hours, or you get an immediate late fee that gets automatically deducted from your credit card.  Even so, as someone who has used the product, I think that the Redbox system is great.  It’s cheap and very efficient.  Get your groceries… find the movie you want… put in your credit card… out comes the movie and you’re outta there.

One inherent drawback to the Redbox business model is that it competes with the many “brick and mortar” video stores that carry huge movie selections and offer quality customer service… along with supplying jobs for school-bound kids.  A major criticism of the kiosk system is that it is believed to be vastly underselling (and therefore undervaluing) the product.

What’s the issue between Redbox and Hollywood?

Well, it appears that a war has begun between Hollywood and the Redbox system and I felt compelled to write about it.

About two months ago, Redbox filed separate lawsuits against both Fox and Universal Studios.  The lawsuit against Fox in Delaware is aiming to lift the distribution ban that has been set in place against movie rental vending machines in that state.

Similarly, Universal Studios was accused of trying to coerce the company into signing an agreement — and threatening to try to stop others from supplying Redbox movies if the company didn’t agree to the terms of the agreement.

Specifically, Universal wanted Redbox to agree to:

wait 45 days after a DVD’s release date before renting it;

pay a royalty of 40% of gross rental revenues;

promise that prices never dip below $0.99 per night; and

destroy all previously rented DVDs rather than offering them for purchase for $7, as Redbox currently does.

It appears that Fox and Universal are trying to circumvent the first sale doctrine by controlling how a copyrighted product can be resold. Universal threatened that if Redbox did not agree to these business-clauses, it would stop supplying movies to any distributor who supplies Redbox. Effectively, that would mean that those distributors would stop supplying Redbox, rather than lose Universal as a supplier.

What’s the view from Hollywood?

“Having our movies rented at $1 is grossly undervaluing our products,” Chase Carey, president of Fox’s parent company, News Corp. (NWS), told analysts during a recent conference call. Some worry that $1 rentals could speed the fall in DVD sales, which Adams Media Research predicts will tumble 9% this year. At the same time, vending machine rentals will accelerate as Redbox and others roll out more kiosks.

The Case of Nintendo Corporation vs. Blockbuster

Back in the late 80′s, I remember reading about an anti-trust lawsuit that Nintendo Corporation brought against Blockbuster.  Keep in mind, this was back in the 8-bit video game days (even before the Sega Genesis and Super Nintendo came out).  In this lawsuit, Nintendo claimed a breach of contract because Blockbuster was photo-copying the game manuals and putting them in the plastic containers along with the cartridges that were being rented out.

Sound ridiculous and petty?  Yeah, well… that’s the way it was.  I’m not sure what became of it, but I would guess that Blockbuster settled out of court.  Furthermore, they must have agreed not to photocopy the important directions describing what the A, B, start and select buttons are for.   Thus, all was well again in the world of “intellectual” property rights.

I brought that story up, because it draws similar parallels to this current one (only about twenty years later).  On one side, you have a company (Redbox) that is trying to make a profit by selling point-of-purchase type service to customers via a kiosk system.  On the other side, you have Megalopulous Studios trying to clamp down on them, because it’s infringing on their bottom line.

Conclusion

At the expense of sounding like a left-leaning Michael Moore anti-capitalism clone (of which I am definitely not), I have to say that I don’t have very much sympathy for any industry or corporation that is trying to unfairly strong-arm the competition at this point.  Hollywood’s rant almost sounds similar to Metallica’s complaint against MP3 downloads and how it was going to cut into their profits.  Boo hoo.  Now, anyone can buy a single song for 99 cents on iTunes, instead of paying $12 for a bad CD with only one or two good songs on it.  Isn’t that terrible?  My sympathies if Metallica only makes $2-5 million per year (instead of $10 million) as a result of this.

On that financial note, Universal Studios and the Hollywood machine in general have very little room to make an argument against Redbox.  If such over-edited, regenerated dreck as G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra or Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen really are worth the $19.99+ price tag that they will likely be given in a few months on DVD, then people will pay that price.  If not, then folks will simply rent them at Red Box for $1.00… maybe.

Market-forces will dictate the value of these movies… not Hollywood.  Just because a studio spent over a million dollars on that really cool five-second Eiffel Tower explosion scene and then spent ten bucks on the overall script… that doesn’t mean that folks should have to pay top-dollar to see it.

One more thing; regarding the issue of Redbox putting the mom and pop video stores out of business, I hate to sound cold here… but video stores are quickly becoming a thing of the past.  Blockbuster has been putting the pinch on smaller video stores for years… and they themselves are feeling the squeeze from online services like NetFlix.  Now, everyone is feeling the pressure from video kiosks like Redbox and DVD Play in an effort to “out cheap” the next guy.

Like it or not, I think that everything is going electronic.  Just like what I mentioned earlier, iTunes and other online music outlets are the first places most folks go to purchase their music nowadays.  Tower Records was one of the biggest record store chains out there.  They got that way in part by selling records and CDs cheaper than the mom and pop stores out there.  Ironically, even Tower Records saw the writing on the wall with the advent of Napster and other file-sharing media outlets online, thus prompting them to liquidate their inventory in 2006.  I see the same thing happening in regard to video within the next ten years or so… which is why services like NetFlix may be the only ones left standing after this whole thing is sorted out.

We’re living in an era of new technology within a new economy.  People want even more convenience and yet we don’t have the same amount of disposable income that we used to.  That’s where Redbox comes in.  Obviously, it’s filling a niche… or it wouldn’t be doing so well.  Change is good.  The music industry learned to embrace it.  Now, the movie industry needs to adapt as well.  Otherwise, it will get left behind, while spending countless dollars on losing court battles.  - FIN

Footnotes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redbox

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081028/0242452664.shtml

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_34/b4144000806009.htm

http://michaelsautter.newsvine.com/_news/2009/08/13/3148806-hollywood-vs-redbox

http://kara.allthingsd.com/20090831/louie-swisher-hearts-redbox-but-hollywood-not-so-much/

When I first considered what shows to include, such ’80s staples as Knight Rider, The Dukes of Hazard, Night Court, G.I. Joe  and The Transformers came to mind.  Ultimately though, I decided that those shows (while they were iconic) were not the kind of shows that I would choose to watch on a regular basis nowadays.  My top five were fairly easy to come up with, but the bottom five took a little bit longer to contemplate.  So then, after much deliberation, I give you the official Ryan Journal Top 10 TV Shows of All-Time.

10.) MTV Oddities (1994-1995) – Time to  to kick-off the top 10 list with something most people have never heard of.  Aside from Twin Peaks, the early to mid ‘90s did not have much to offer in the way of surreal sub-cultural favorites.  However MTV’s Oddities cartoon series was  was a good place to start.  The early ‘90s introduced the rise of some popular independant comic book artists, such as Todd McFarlane of Image Studios.  His short-lived Spawn cartoon series had a very unusual and cinematic quality to it… almost like a storyline from a popular Playstation or XBox RPG would be only 15 years later.  Another short-lived cartoon series called The Maxx was also drawn and written in a very unique way… somewhat disturbing but yet very interesting to look at.  Lastly, the science fiction movie Aeon Flux, starring Charlize Theron was based on the short cartoon of the same name that was originally a part of MTV Oddities.  Overall, this is a very good collection of cinematic cartoons with adult themes.  Strangely enough, it’s also the only cable TV show that I decided to include on the list.

9.) The Jeffersons (1975-1986) – This is by far my favorite sitcom of the 1980’s.  No other comedy came close.  This series launched the careers of both Sherman Hemsley (George Jefferson) and Marla Gibbs (Florence Johnston).  In this spin-off of another highly popular sitcom from the ‘70s (All in the Family), a nouveau riche, African-American couple move into a luxury apartment building and develop close, if occasionally fractious, relationships with other tenants.  Though this show was deemed to be offensive by some, I found it to be extremely entertaining and witty as each episode was filled with both overt and covert social commentary.  The comedic timing was superb as the one-liners kept coming out… one after another.  Throughout the long 11-year run of The Jeffersons, the show was nominated for 8 Golden Globe awards and it was no doubt deserving of every one of them.

8.)  The McLaughlin Group (1982 – present) -  Being somewhat politically-minded by nature, I felt like The McLaughlin Group  should be the next up on this list.  This long-running PBS news/talk-show presents several journalists involved in spirited discussions of topics in current events. The group is led in round-table discussions by former Nixon and Ford speech writer John McLaughlin.  Some of the more notable  returning guest debaters are such popular and polarizing political figures as Pat Buchanan, Eleanor Clift and Monica Crowley.  This show is so laid-back and entertaining, that I used to  watch it long before I had any major interest or clue about the political process.  Also, the fact that this show has lasted over 27 years just goes to show that they’re doing something right.  This is definitely the best show on PBS… bar none.

7.) Star Trek: The Next Generation (1987-1994) – You know that a science fiction show has had a successful run when the average soccer mom can name at least two characters on the show.  In fact, at one point People Magazine named Patrick Stewart (Captain Jean-Luc Picard) as the sexiest man alive.  Not that it means anything to me.  I was a fairly big fan of both Marina Sirtis (Counselor Troi) and Denise Crosby (Tasha Yar).  Aaanyway, back to the show.  Even though I don’t consider myself to be quite  knowledgeable enough to be considered either a Trekkie or a Trekker (thank goodness), I would have to say that this is by far the best science fiction show in television history.  The mid to late ‘80s saw a colossal void in regard to quality science fiction shows… and yet Star Trek: TNG came along and filled that void perfectly.  Seven wonderful seasons were immediately followed up with four major motion pictures from 1994 to 2002.  Even the most die-hard “old-school” Star Trek fan would have a hard time arguing against that kind of success. 

6.) Monday Night Football (1970-present) – In America, football is definitely the most popular televised spectator sport around… and rightfully so.  No other show on television actually had people looking forward to the beginning of the work-week like Monday Night Football did.  I started watching MNF way back in the late 1980’s.  Remember, that was back when the Cleveland Browns were actually good at football (sigh).  Anyway, even though I have been a much bigger college football fan over the last decade or so, there is still something special about Monday Night Football.  For both fantasy football league players and office pool players, this game usually tends to be the premiere game of the week for the NFL.  Thus the league usually tries to get a fairly even match-up and as a result… the game often ends up being competitive and entertaining from the opening kick-off until the final play.  Unfortunately, with the advent of new entertainment options and digital video recorders like TiVo, the average viewer has lost interest in live football and the game has lost a bit of luster as a result of this.  Just a few years ago, MNF was moved away from it’s long-time home on ABC over to it’s sister cable station (ESPN).  As a result of this, even fewer people are watching the games than ever before.  It’s kind of sad (in a sports sort of way), but as we all know… nothing in life lasts forever.

5.) Late Night with Conan O’ Brien (1993-2009) – I was as skeptical as anyone when late night newcomer Conan O’Brien took over the spot that had been previously vacated by David Letterman in NBC’s dominant after hours slot.  Those were some major shoes to fill.  However, it didn’t take long to recognize the tremendous wit and comedic timing of this former Simpsons writer and Harvard Lampoon alumnus.  I think that part of the appeal of Conan was not just that he was a goofy guy who knew how to read the queue cards and act funny on stage, but he also knew how to interact with his guests in a way that was both serious and hilarious at the same time.  Initially, all the talk was about the “King of Late Night” title belonging to either David Letterman or Jay Leno.  However, after only a few short years, Conan was considered to be equal with (if not greater than) both of them.  In my opinion, it’s not even close.  Letterman was hilarious at one time, but the writing seemed to go downhill fast after he moved over to CBS.  Jay Leno is a comedian that I have a lot of respect for, but even his exceptional energy and overall comedic talent was just no match for Conan.  Just a few weeks ago, Jay Leno stepped down from NBC’s popular Tonight Show after an extremely successful 17-year run and passed his mantle along to the new “King of Late Night.”  Comedy is certainly an art form and as such, I consider  Conan to be the Norman Rockwell of the genre.

4.) Everybody Loves Raymond (1996-2005) – Continuing on, when it comes to great comedy… I never thought that CBS had much to offer.  Three words always came to mind when thinking about comedy on CBS; Kate and Allie.  Yech!  Well, Ray Romano and his quirky family managed to change all of that.  For those who may not be aware of it, the show obviously revolves around sports writer Ray Barone (Romano) and his seemingly perfect family who just happen to live across the street from his obnoxious parents and openly jealous older brother.  Now admittedly, I got into the show a little late in the game.  My parents were colossal fans of ELR for years and that made me fairly skeptical to say the least.  Then one night, I happened to watch an episode and I pretty much wound up hooked after that.  During the highly successful 9-year run of ELR, the show was nominated for over 129 awards.  The writing and casting was simply superb.  More than anything else, the one thing that amazed me about this show was that 90% of any one given episode took place in one of two places; the kitchen or the living room.  It’s very difficult to write and perform an entertaining sitcom about real life issues (with very few scenery changes) that keeps you interested… let alone rolling on the floor in laughter for 30 minutes straight.  When that rare brand of show comes along… it’s a keeper.  If you haven’t seen an episode, then you don’t know what you’re missing.

3.) Miami Vice (1984-1989) – No TV show epitomized my favorite decade (the ‘80s) better than Miami Vice.  From the popularity of the five-o-clock shadow to the white sport coats with neon shirts and boat shoes… it all started with Miami Vice.  This show launched the careers of Don Johnson and Edward James Olmos.  Originally created by acclaimed film-maker Michael Mann, the show bolted out of the gates on NBC’s Friday night lineup.  For the first year, it was in an all-out ratings war with another extremely popular NBC franchise called The Cosby Show.  Part of the appeal was the dramatic way in which every scene of every episode was carefully choreographed and shot.  Michael Mann would later explain that it was his intent for the show to have a uniquely cinematic appeal to it.  For anyone who spent time watching the show, this fact would become very apparent.  Even the popular synthesizer induced sound-track was both uniquely ‘80s and theatrical in nature.  In fact, the Jan Hammer theme song for the show went straight to #1 and stayed there for 12 weeks, making it the most successful TV soundtrack of all time.  Now I’ve never been a big fan of police dramas, but this is one of those rare shows that you could just sit and watch if for no other reason than to appreciate the artistic beauty of the cinematography.  Admittedly, the show itself does look a bit dated, but then again, just about every show that’s 15 years old or more will look a bit out of place.  So what?  That’s part of the beauty of it.  Miami Vice is distinctly ‘80s and it always will be.

2.) The Simpsons (1989-present) – One of the longest running and most successful shows of all-time is… a cartoon?  No ‘bout a doubt it.  The show began as a simple sketch on the Fox network’s Tracy Ulman Show.  Shortly thereafter, it received it’s own prime-time slot on Sunday nights and it has been there ever since.  Many people have moral objections to the show for various reasons.  Most of these reasons have to do with questionable subject matter or crude and offensive behavior.  While I can understand the objections and even agree with some of them, I would have to say that as a whole, the show is more of a sarcastic and highly amplified reflection of society as a whole (sort of like the goofy distorted mirrors that you see at a carnival).  The show takes normal mundane events and turns them into something out of a Dr. Suess book.  If you really think it through, you will find that the show is almost surreal in nature.  You have the unqualified dad who loves donuts and runs a nuclear power plant, the wife with the extended blue ‘70s beehive hair, the middle-school age daughter who is ready to join Mensa and save the universe… and the son whose list of pranks is rivaled only by Harry Houdini.  Now if that’s supposed to be what real-life is like, then I guess I need to get out a little more.  Instead, I think the show can be appreciated for what it is… a cartoon…. nothing more and nothing less.  If you pay attention, even the show tends to make fun of itself on a regular basis.  In 2007, the Simpsons movie came out.  While I was not overly impressed, I did find it to be fairly entertaining and once again filled with social commentary.   Part of the beauty of The Simpsons is simply that you can either try to read into it and pick out the various bits of cultural humor that are interspersed throughout every episode… or you can just sit back and enjoy.

1.) Seinfeld (1990-1998) – If you’ve never heard of Seinfeld, then I only have one question; “What planet are you from?”  This show is so unbelievably well-written and funny that I don’t even know where to begin.  In the late ‘90s, TV Guide came out with their list of the Top 50 TV Shows of All Time.  While I agree with some of the shows on their list (Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Melrose Place), I certainly didn’t agree with all of them (Mash, ER, Friends).  Even so, the one thing that I did agree on was that Seinfeld belonged high atop the list at numero uno.  Larry David, the creator of the Seinfeld franchise, pointed out that this was a somewhat dark comedy about the kind of friends that you wouldn’t necessarily want to have.  You know, the kind of friends that may mean well (every now and then), but ultimately they mess everything up in a funny way with their own bad decisions.  The one thing  that always struck me about this show was the amazing way in which three or four different storylines could be going on during a half-hour episode, and all of them end up crossing paths while reaching a final resolution (or most likely disaster) by the end of the show.  The writing was simply brilliant and hilarious at the same time. I don’t know if there has ever been a single show in the history of mankind that has created more cultural cliches and iconic sayings than Seinfeld ( man-hands, soup nazi, serenity now, double-dipping, bubble-boy, low-talker, festivus, yada yada yada,…).  The same could be said about the actors and the characters that they portrayed (Jerry, Elaine, George, Newman, Mr. Peterman, Uncle Leo, and of course Cosmo Kramer just to name a few).    When the final episode came out, I remember that everyone in the office was planning on watching it.  Some were even going to tape it.  It was a colossal event.  While the final episode was good… it was not quite as good as many of us thought it would be.  Perhaps the problem was that our expectations were too high.  Regardless, the show went out with a bang and it can still be seen in reruns on most local TV stations on a regular basis.  One of the tell-tale signs of an epic show is how long it stays in syndication after the original series was taken off the air.  So far, it’s still going strong.

Warning:

Introduction

Even though this story is already considered to be  old news, I feel that it’s important to take a critical look back here.  For those of you who are not familiar with the fairly recent Miss California scandal, I am now going to briefly explain what happened and then give my own editorial opinion on the matter.  For those of you who are already familiar with the scandal, you may want to skip ahead a few paragraphs.

What happened?

On April 19, 2009,22-year old Carrie Prejean represented the state of California in the Miss USA competition.
One of the celebrity judges, Perez Hilton, asked whether other states should follow Vermont’s lead in legalizing same-sex marriage.
According to Politifact.com, Prejean’s answer was: “I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised.”
Prejean finished the competition as the runner-up.

What happened after that?

According to ABC News, a set of topless photos of Prejean from the year before began to appear on the internet about a month after the pageant.  Shortly thereafter, Prejean was stripped of her Miss California title by the pageant organizer (Donald Trump), citing “breach of contract” issues.

Prejean said she didn’t consider the photos to be “semi-nude” and added that while she had been pressured to do so, she had never posed nude or semi-nude and always requested that her breasts be covered, and that she be photographed in full bottoms.

What was the response to this?

Although Prejean had attracted a bandwagon of critics from homosexual rights advocates for her marriage answer, she was celebrated for taking a stand for her beliefs by Christian pro-family groups, many of which gave her the platform to their audiences.

According to Christiantoday.com, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), which had run a pro-traditional marriage ad featuring a clip of Prejean’s answer, was very skeptical that Prejean’s firing was unrelated to her gay marriage.  Both the President and Executive Director of NOM voiced their full support for Carrie.

Prejean’s mother, Francine, came out in defense of her daughter, telling the blog MomLogic.com that the beauty queen is “being persecuted for speaking her opinion” about gay marriage.

Prejean also told Christian radio host Dr. James Dobson that Satan tried to tempt her with a question about gay marriage at the Miss USA pageant.

But while many Christian conservatives rose to her defense, some cautioned against ushering her into being the “new family values spokeswoman,” noting that photos of her posing topless (but unexposed) would send a contradictory message.

“Prejean’s pictures are the kind that normally would elicit disapproval from pro-family groups,” Dr. Warren Throckmorton, associate professor of Psychology at Grove City College in Pennsylvania, had told The Christian Post.

“However, some groups (Dove Awards, The Rock Church in California, Liberty University, Values Voters Summit, NOM) have given her a platform simply because she said she believes marriage is between a man and a woman, apparently discounting the harm to family values from her risqué modeling work,” he said.

In his blog, Throckmorton wrote, “Unless religious conservatives have some kind of answer to our girls about how they can lionize a Miss USA contestant and stress modesty at the same time, I do not see the virtue in giving her the platform.”

In spite of all the support, the racy photos did draw criticism from some of the same conservative groups that initially backed Prejean for her gay marriage stance.

Why should Christians be concerned about what happened?

A friend of mine subscribes to a very conservative Christian e-mail newsletter called the Watchmen Report.  While I’m a bit skeptical of some of the information in their May newsletter, I do have to agree on a few points that were made in regard to the Miss California story.

First off, a very strong and condemning point was made in the newsletter that deserves consideration.  It says; “How can you stand before hardened unbelievers and espouse Christian values while standing half naked on a stage with augmented breasts bulging from your less-than-bra-top and have questionable topless photographs in your portfolio without expecting the heathen to attack?  They say, CHRISTIAN, get the beam out of your own eye before trying to take the splinter out others.  If we want to speak on our spiritual beliefs, standing before an audience in a barely-there bikini is certainly not the wisest attire for the occasion, lest you find your preacher’s preaching in Speedos acceptable!”  Those points sound very judgmental… but they are also  hard to argue against.

Secondly, the newsletter goes on to say; “The corrupted, Satanic, Babylonian brand of Christianity in America not only breeds what Yahweh finds detestable, but even applauds the barely-there, partial nudity of beauty pageants and sees no conflict of interest in the Word.  The image left is of professed born again Christian, Carrie Prejean, so understand, I am not a prude, neither am I attempting to offend by showing this picture, but show the overt hypocrisy and extreme apostasy that has crept into American Christianity.”  Once again, very harsh words… but nothing that I can really disagree with for the most part.

“And the winner is…“

No one.  This is an issue that has done nothing but bring shame on Christianity, all the while igniting the anger of homosexual rights and proposition 9 advocates.

I got into a debate with my wife over this issue, but my ultimate argument was not against Carrie Prejean.  It’s not my place to call anyone a hypocrit.   I think that she did the best that she could after being blind-sided by a politically-charged question.  She spoke the truth in a no-win situation  and I applaud her for that. 

My argument is that she should not have been put in that situation in the first place.  You could liken it to going to a strip-club in order to hand out tracks and attempt to evangelize to the men and women that are there.  Try it and you will likely get thrown out within the first 15 minutes… or less. 

Better yet, remember the old MTV Spring Break Specials live from Daytona Beach?  Just about everyone watched them at one point, whether you’re willing to admit it or not.  A bunch of college students dancing around with nothing but a few loin-cloths on.  What if you got up on the stage in your Speedos, grabbed the microphone and shared your views on the sanctity of marriage with the people that were there?  What kind of reception would you receive?  Do I even have to ask?  You would likely be booed off the stage and promptly escorted out by security bouncers.  The point is that the world is the world for a reason.  It recognizes the truth but it refuses to believe it.  In fact, without a regenerate spirit, I believe it is impossible to accept it.  Furthermore, when the world senses hypocrisy, it will lash back and any witness that could have been given is destroyed.

I don’t blame Carrie for what happened.  I blame the cultural Christian system in the west that often-times  says “partial nudity is acceptable if we agree with your message.”

In closing, the Bible gives women fairly clear instructions regarding clothing, and though not to the extreme of the Amish, some common sense must reign.  Being photographed in something less-than-underwear while espousing your Christian values is like mixing oil and water.
In like manner also, women adorn yourselves in modest apparel, with modesty and sobriety…which becomes women professing godliness, with good works. (1 Timothy 2:9-10)

We’re all guilty of gossip… some of us on a daily basis.  The question with gossip is simply this; how much of it is acceptable in the church?  Should it be tolerated at all?  If not, then how should it be dealt with?  Are there positives as well as negatives that result from gossip?  What does the Bible have to say about this subject?  I’ve done some research on this, and the results may surprise you.

Gossip:  how is it officially defined?

The word “gossip” is one of those rare terms that can be used as a verb… as well as a noun. 

Webster’s Dictionary defines the verb form of the word as either  “A  rumor or report of an intimate nature”or “a chatty talk.”  That sounds simple enough.  However,   the noun form is defined as “A person who habitually reveals personal or sensational facts about others.“

Upon noticing this, there appears to be a clear distinction that must be made between these two definitions.  The verb form of “gossip” is fairly benign and objective in nature while the noun form is decidedly negative.  For example, when someone talks to a friend about his/her date last night, it could technically be considered as an act of gossip, because the other person is not involved.  However, if that same person freely discusses intimate details about many other people on a regular basis, then that person him/herself is considered to be a gossip.  Obviously, the second  definition would bring a much stronger indictment from most people.

What are the positives of gossip?

Wikipedia says that gossip forms one of the oldest and most common means of sharing (unproven) facts and views.  It’s also an important means by which people can monitor cooperative reputations and so maintain widespread indirect reciprocity. Indirect reciprocity is defined as “I help you and somebody else helps me”. The act itself has been identified by biologist Robin Dunbar as aiding social bonding in large groups.

Five popular functions of gossip are as follows:
1.) to normalise and reinforce moral boundaries  in a speech-community
2.) to foster and build a sense of community with shared interests and information
3.) to build structures of social accountability
4.) to further mutual social grooming (like many other uses of language, only more so)
5.) to provide a mating tool that allows (for example) women to mutually identify socially desirable men and compare notes on which men are better than others

Some of the benefits of gossip are as follows:
1.) helps individuals learn social information about other individuals (often without even having to meet the other individual)
2.) builds social networks of individuals by bonding individuals together and affiliating people with each other
3.) enhances ones social status/power/prestige within a certain group and/or organization
4.) informs individuals as to what is considered socially acceptable behavior within that group

Last and most importantly, a feminist definition of gossip presents it as “a way of talking between women, intimate in style, personal and domestic in scope and setting, a female cultural event which springs from and perpetuates the restrictions of the female role, but also gives the comfort of validation.” (Jones, 1990:243)

So then, what are the negatives of gossip?

Christian Youth worker and writer Kelli Mahoney states her position on this matter very clearly on About.com  when she says that spreading rumors only hurts others and destroys our credibility. She then goes on to ask “Who is going to trust us with anything when they think we’ll tell everyone else?”

According to Ms. Mahoney… gossip is also a way we judge others, which really isn’t our job.  While many may be inclined to disagree with her analysis, she boldly asserts that gossip only ends up creating greed, hate, envy and  murder.

Furthermore, some negative consequences of gossip in the workplace  may include:
1.) lost productivity and wasted time
2.) erosion of trust and morale
3.) increased anxiety among employees as rumors circulate without any clear information as to what is fact and what isn’t 4.) growing divisiveness among employees as people “take sides”
5.) hurt feelings and reputations
6.) jeopardized chances for the gossipers’ advancement as they are perceived as unprofessional
6.) attrition as good employees leave the company due to the unhealthy work atmosphere

Okay, what does the Bible say about this?

The Word of God is pretty clear on this subject.  In Paul’s  Epistle to the Romans, he associates gossips (“backbiters”) with a list of sins including sexual immorality and with murder:

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. (Romans 1:28-32)

There are also a few more verses that fall in line with this thinking.

Leviticus 19:16 – “Do not go about spreading slander among your people. Do not do anything that endangers your neighbor’s life. I am the Lord.” (NIV)
Proverbs 11:13 – “A gossip betrays a confidence, but a trustworthy man keeps a secret.” (NIV)
Romans 1:29 – “They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips.” (NIV)
1 Timothy 5:13 – “Besides, they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house. And not only do they become idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying things they ought not to.” (NIV)
Matthew 7:1 – “Do not judge, or you too will be judged.” (NIV)
Proverbs 18:8 – “The words of gossip are like choice morsels; they go down to a man’s inmost parts.” (NIV)

What’s the verdict?

I think that there is a clear distinction that must be made between a person who gossips and a person who simply is a gossip.  Everyone gossips both inside and outside of the church and we are all guilty of it.  To claim otherwise would be hypocritical to the core.  Does that automatically turn us all into gossips?  I think not… at least no more than the person who forgets to return his co-worker’s pencil is a thief.  Furthermore, if we are born again of water and of the Spirit, then our actions no longer define who we are. 

The noun form of the word “gossip” is clearly at the heart of the issue here.  Dictionary.com defines the gossip as “a person given to tattling or idle talk.”  In other words, this is a person that is already predisposed to speak ill of others in the church on a regular basis.  It’s almost as if it’s second nature for him/her to do so.  This is the kind of person that can destroy a fellowship and bring division along with eventual shame to a church.  When the act of a gossip goes from simple chatter  into a full-fledged war of words, then the church as a whole suffers.

Even so, who are we to judge who the gossips are among us… lest we cast the first stone and claim to be without sin?  Labeling others in the church is not acceptable.  If we presume to know who the “idle talkers” are among us, then are we not already making a judgement about our fellow brothers and sisters?  As a result, we become guilty of the very thing of which  we judge others.

Instead, or attitude must be one of love and kindness.   The only way to fight the tools of a gossip is to respond to him/her in love and possibly with a gentle rebuke from leadership… but only if called for.  Otherwise, we will only continue to perpetuate a vicious war of words that may not end until it has torn down everyone in it’s path.

My campus minister used to say that “We judge others by their actions… and we judge ourselves by our intentions.”  How true.  His words continue to stay with me to this day.  God does not call us to judge our brothers and sisters in the faith.  He calls us to love all of  them… and that would include the gossips as well.

Okay, my first article in over a year is going to be on a fairly benign and low-key topic… of interest only to football fans such as myself.  Of course what I’m talking about is the creation of three new professional football leagues that are all set to begin play in 2010 (the UFL, AAFL and the resurrected USFL).  I had first heard about this on talk radio… and immediately I felt compelled to do a little more research on this subject.

INTRODUCTION

First off, when it comes to American football… I’m pretty much a sports junkie.  In my opinion, it’s the greatest TV spectator sport known to man (hockey is better live though).  I grew up watching good football (Ohio State) on Saturdays and bad football (Cleveland Browns) on Sundays.  In what other sport can you get over 100,000 rabid fans packed into an outdoor stadium for three hours (not counting soccer)?  Honestly, on a high-definition TV it can often-times feel like you’re right there amidst the pandemonium in the stands.  Such enthusiasm is one of the driving factors behind the creation of so many various football leagues over the last few decades.

In the early 1990′s, the NFL experimented with a new league that was then known as the World League of Amerian Football (WLAF).  Their slogan was simply ”Expanding the future of Pro Football.”  This new experimental league had a TV contract with ABC and USA networks and it was originally comprised of ten teams, three of which resided in Europe and the other seven resided in North America (Birmingham Fire, Montreal Machine, New York/NewJersey Knights, Orlando Thunder, Raleigh-Durham Skyhawks, Sacramento Surge, San Antonio Riders).  Originally, the plan was for the league to be a farm system from which certain NFL teams would be able to claim the rights to certain individual players.  The NFL also decided to make the three European teams (Barcelona Dragons, Frankfurt Galaxy, London Monarchs) a little bit better in order to help expand the interest of American football abroad.  The superior rosters showed in the final standings of the first season, as all three of the European teams had the best records.  World Bowl I was played in London’s Wembley Stadium between the Dragons and the host Monarchs.  In front of a crowd of over 80,000 screaming fans, the Monarchs won by a score of 21-0.  After watching that game on ABC, I really thought that American football had a good chance of surviving overseas.  Unfortunately, I was wrong.

Fan interest in the United States was minimal at best… as some of the most strident football fans had little to no interest in watching football in the spring time.  After only a couple years, all of the North American teams were contracted.  The NFL also changed the name of the league to the NFL Europe and added two more teams to Germany (Rhein Fire, Berlin Thunder) along with two other expansion teams (Amsterdam Admirals and Scotland Claymores).  I would later learn that the reason American football is so big in Germany is simply because of the fact that so many US military personnel are stationed out there.  The league continued to serve as a feeder-system for the NFL and they played a very shortened season that was not televised in the US.  One of the most notable inventions that the league will be remembered for was the creation of the helmet-cam.  Eventually though, even the expensive helmet-cam device was not utilized much… if at all.  The league ceased all operations in 2007 citing $30 million a year in lost revenue.  The NFL is currently focusing on having more regular season games abroad in order to drum up continued interest in the game.

Flash ahead about four more years, and that brings us to the XFL.  I remember when the new league was first introduced (spring of 2001) as a joint venture between Vince McMahon of World Wrestling Entertainment and executives from NBC.  This 8-team league was advertised as a spring alternative to fall football and it had a lot of appeal to go with it (fewer penalties, cheerleaders galore, and lots of trash-talking).  With an impressive TV deal involving NBC, UPN and TNN, the first weekend of the season showed a lot of promise for the XFL as both of their nationally televised games drew surprisingly high Nielsen ratings.  Most notable was the introduction of the “crane-cam” or “sky cam” which hovered directly over the field of play from a wire and gave the home viewing audience an in-depth view of the action from above.  Later on, the NFL would adopt this technology for use on regular season games.  Unfortunately, that’s about all that the NFL would adopt from it, as the novelty of the new XFL wore off rather quickly and the league folded up operations after just one season of play.

So that brings us to now… sort of.  The first of the new leagues that I will briefly mention is the new USFL.  For the uninitiated, the USFL was a short-lived football league that began play in 1983 and went defunct in 1985.  Plans were announced recently to launch a “new USFL” to begin play in the spring of 2010, with 12 teams playing in a 16-game season.  Currently, there is very little information on their official website and even less information everywhere else on the internet, but even so… it sounds like there is some progress being made.  I would recommend checking back on their website every now and then.  We’ll have to see what happens from now until the league begins play, but as of right now… I am not impressed with the little that I’ve seen and heard.

Next up would be the All American Football League.  The league, which combines a professional pay structure with the requirement that all players be college graduates, had originally been scheduled to start in the spring of 2007, but later postponed its launch to the spring of 2008, then 2009, and most recently 2010.  One of the more unusual features of the league was that the teams have no nicknames, being referred to simply as “Team Florida”, “Team Texas”, etc.  Furthermore, each of the teams would have an inordinate number of players that played college football in that particular state.  For example, Team Alabama would have many players that played college football within the state of Alabama on it’s roster.  It’s a novel concept and a lot of people seem to think that the idea of a “home state” league with regional collegiate appeal will be very popular.  I’m a little bit more skeptical, but I still think it’s worth a shot.  Also, the idea is unique enough that it could be a big hit in areas of the country where college and pro-football are no longer fairing too well… namely “Team Michigan.”

Last, but certainly not least would be the United Football League.  The new league is set to begin their season in October of 2009 and all of their games will be played on Thursday and Friday evenings.  The championship game would be played shortly thereafter on Thanksgiving weekend.  This truncated inaugural season is what the new commissioner of the UFL describes as a “soft launch.”  That would be similar to what the Arena Football League did during their inaugural season of 1987.  Very deliberate.  While the UFL has no official connection to the NFL, some have speculated that it could become a minor or “developmental” league for the NFL.  In fact, some notable NFL coaches from years gone by are once again set to begin coaching in the UFL.  Among them are Dennis Green, Jim Fassell and Jim Haslett.  Among some of the league’s prominent list of potentially interested investors are Mark Cuban, Paul Tagliabue and Paul Pelosi (husband of Nancy Pelosi).  From all indications, this league appears to have the highest likelihood for success.  Their strategy is very cautious and deliberate and there appears to be enough investment support for this new league for it to one day end up with the same secure status as it’s predecessor (Arena Football League) as a fully-funded minor league system of the NFL.

CONCLUSION

Well, there you have it.  Some of my own writing does strike me a little as ”tongue in cheek” when you consider the fact that the Arena Football League went defunct last season, but will be returning next season.  I suppose everything is cyclical… at least in the sports world that is.  Now I’m not sure what the next year may hold for our nation or world… let alone football.  Even so, in spite of all the economic turmoil and rampant government waste, it looks like football fans everywhere will at least have something new and hopefully positive to look forward to in the coming fall and spring-time… even if it only ends up lasting for a season.

Forward

Okay. I know that all eyes in the country were on the Memphis vs. Kansas NCAA men’s basketball championship game last night.

Well, I didn’t watch a minute of it… honestly… and I still don’t know what the final score is.

Why? Because I’m still beaming over the Ohio State Buckeyes’ #1 finish last week in men’s basketball. You might be wondering what kind of b-ball heresy I’m talking about. Well, I’m talking about none other than the NIT (National Invitational Tournament)… also simply known by many as the “No Interest Tournament.”

So What Is the NIT and Why Do I Care?

Now normally I would have to agree with the college basketball aficionados about the NIT. Let’s face it, unless your favorite team is playing in this tourney, you probably have no interest in it whatsoever. After all, this tourney is basically the battle of the “left-overs”… or the 64 second best teams in division 1-A college basketball.

That being said, I’m pretty psyched about seeing the Buckeyes finish first in the NIT. In some ways, it may be considered a vindication of sorts for them… after being one of the “bubble” teams that just missed out on getting a bid for this season’s NCAA Tournament.

The Fall and the Rise from the Ashes

One season removed from a devastating loss to Florida in the 2007 NCAA Championship Game followed by the departure of key players Mike Conley, Greg Oden and Dequan Cook to the NBA… it was clear that the Buckeyes would have some work to do with only Jamar Butler, David Lighty and Othello Hunter left to carry the load.

However, with the 2007 Coach of the Year (Thad Matta) at the helm, the team was more likely to “reload” than it was to rebuild. Entering the season, Matta had assembled a top-five recruiting class with 7-foot big man Kosta Koufos playing center and prized recruit Evan Turner playing guard. The Bucks were looking to be very young… but also very good.

The Results

However, things did not go as well as planned for this young team that struggled to win close games in a Big Ten Conference that was having a tough year of it’s own. A year ago, the team was mentally tough enough to win the close games and it was that very toughness that helped to carry them to the NCAA Finals.

Conversely, this year the young Bucks finished the regular season at a fairly mediocre 10-8 in Big Ten Conference play and 19-13 overall. Still, the team had an outside chance to make it to “the Big Dance” if they had run the gauntlet and won the Big Ten Tournament. Unfortunately, they lost to Michigan State in the opening round 67-60 in Lansing, just five days after beating the Spartans 63-54 in Columbus.

Having been one of the most notable bubble teams at the end of the season, the Buckeyes got a #1 seed in the NIT, which they graciously accepted. Having the albatross and pressure of making the NCAA Tournament behind them, the Bucks seemed to be rejuvenated right from the outset and they caught their second wind right away. They went on to beat their first four opponents by at least 11 points, en-route to a 92-85 thumping of Massachusetts in the finals… thus finishing the season with an overall record of 24-13. Not too shabby.

So What’s the Big Picture Here?

Over the last two years, the Buckeyes have finished #2 in the nation in three major sports (basketball, soccer and twice in football). In soccer, they were up by a score of 1-0 before losing 2-1 against Wake Forest in the 2007 National Championship Game.

Finally, it’s nice to see Ohio State finish #1 in something… even if it’s basically for the Mickey Mouse Trophy of college basketball. Being that I’m a long-suffering sports-fan from the most disappointing professional sports cellar of America (Cleveland, Ohio), it’s refreshing to know that my home state has at least some sports teams to be proud of… even if they are collegiate-level teams playing for a fairly meaningless second-tier trophy.  It’s the Bucks’ first #1 finish since the 2002 dream season in which the football team went 14-0 and upset a heavily favored Miami team.

Hey, we’re championship-starved in both the city of Cleveland and the state of Ohio in general… so I’ll be happy with whatever trophies come our way.

Go Buckeyes!!!

Introduction

I am going to give a very simple and basic outline of what the occupation in Iraq is costing us in US dollars only. Since this article deals basically with the financial costs of the war in Iraq, I will not get into the mortality and casualty numbers at this time. This particular article will be more objective and informational in nature and less subjective than future posts.

Forward

No matter what you think about the current administration, the war in Iraq, Halliburton, the price of oil and the economy in general, I think there’s one thing that most everyone will agree on. That is simply this; the occupation in the middle east is costing this country a lot.

The Statistics

The following information is taken from the American Friends Service Committee. If you find any of the this data to be in error, feel free to contact AFSC at praxisafc@igc.org.

Government spending on the war over the past four years has exceeded $1 trillion.

The current occupation is costing $720 million (per day).

Yeah, you heard right.

“So what?” you say. “What does $720 million get you nowadays anyway?”

Well, I’m glad you asked. In order to put this number in perspective, here’s a fairly simple laundry list of things that this money could buy:

• 12,478 elementary school teachers
• 1,274, 336 homes with renewable electricity
• 95, 364 Head Start places for children
• 6,482 families with homes
• 34,904 four-year scholarships for university students
• 84 new elementary schools
• 163,525 people with healthcare
• 720 million burritos from the dollar menu (before tax)

That last point was added for the sake of levity. Obviously, this is not a laughing matter though.

Well, there you have it. What more is there to say?

The Cost at Home

According to the AFSC, Congress and the Administration have cut funding for vital services at home in the name of fiscal “restraint.” Between 2002 and 2006, dozens of federal programs have been cut, including Head Start, the Community Food and Nutrition program, youth job training, affordable housing, and material and child health programs. The official number of people living in poverty in the US grew from 34.6 to 37 million between 2002 and 2005, and 1.5 million people lost their health insurance.

Final Analysis

Not to say that I’m completely in favor of government spending on entitlement programs either, but I’m just going to bite my tongue right now on this issue. Moral, ethical and fiscal problems aside… I think that the numbers speak for themselves in an age where the US dollar is inflating faster than a helium balloon.

-fin-

Introduction

In this article, I want to address two philosophical questions that I have particularly struggled with in the past:

1.) Does “luck” really exist?
2.) If so, should we believe in it?

Forward

I realize that this may seem like a foolish question to ask… especially in light of the fact that most Christians and non-Christians alike view “luck” as more of a fairy-tale concept than a fact.

In some ways though, the fairy-tale may be derived from a certain amount of fact, and vice-versa. Hopefully, I’m not losing you here with psycho-babble speak as that is never my intent.

Definitions

Now then, let’s look at the actual text-book definitions for the word “Luck.” According to www.dictionary.reference.com… the American Heritage Dictionary defines luck in three basic terms… the first one being that it is “The chance happening of fortunate or adverse events. (Ex.: They met one day out of pure luck.).” The second definition is “Good fortune or prosperity (Ex.: We wish you luck.).” The third and final definition is “One’s personal fate or lot (Ex.: It was just my luck to win a trip I couldn’t take.).”

Okay, let’s analyze each respective definition in depth and see what we come up with.

First off, have you ever encountered a random coincidence in your life where a series of events happened and you didn’t know why (such as being in another city and running into a childhood friend that you hadn’t seen in years)? Most of us have. I know I have, although that’s not to say that I encountered the last one that was just mentioned though.

Secondly, did you ever come across something that seemed to bring you wealth at a fairly quick rate (such as a financial fund or internet investment of some sort). Many people can point to at least one time in their life when they experienced at least some type of good fortune. This might be defined by some as “good” luck.

Lastly, have you ever dealt with one of those “Murphy’s Law” type days where everything seemed to go wrong (such as when you’re running late for an important meeting and your car breaks down on the interstate while the rain is pouring down). I’m pretty sure that we’ve all encountered this scenario in some way, shape or form as well. This might be defined by some as “bad” luck.

In fact, I’m pretty sure that almost everyone can point to real life encounters that vividly illustrate almost all three of these definitions.

So then, what are we to think about the concept of “luck?” Does it really exist?

Getting at the Root

Having once heard that the original root form of the word luck had ascended out of the word Lucifer (lux: Latin for “light bearer”), I sought to confirm this through online research. However, the only information I could find on that subject had been shot down by an Oxford Etymologist.

However, what I did find was that said researcher claimed that words like “luck” tend to “originate in the underworld; they are often borrowed from the speech of foreign soldiers, mendicants, sharpers, peddlers, and prostitutes and, therefore, cross language borders easily.”

Even though the exact origin of this word is unclear, the researcher continues to assert that it may have a possible beginning in Germanic culture, since luck has been compared with German locken (allure, entice), gelingen (succeed), as well as several verbs for “bend, turn and close.”

So What?

Let’s look in another direction… a more philosophical direction.

Some of the most common words you may ever hear a person say in regard to luck are such esoteric statements as “You create your own luck.”

Now whether or not the individual actually believes in a figurative or literal definition for conjuring up a spell of fortune and/or prosperity out of his/her own ability may be up for debate. I would guess that most people use such terms merely as insincere cultural rhetoric and nothing more.

You may also see someone give more of a logical, linear and downright mathematical definition for the word, sort of like the following statement: preparation + opportunity = luck. Once again, I’m guessing it’s more rhetoric than substantive belief in actual luck.

So Does Luck Really Exist?

In my humble opinion, I do believe that luck exists. I also agree with the text-book definition that there is a duality to it’s nature (good luck and bad luck).

Before you get out the tar and feathers, allow me to clarify some things. I believe that the true form of “good” luck can be found in one word… “blessing.” The Bible tells us that “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom can be no variation, neither shadow that is cast by turning. (James 1:17)” This is what I believe to be the true version of good luck. As a result, I believe that we need to “…in everything give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus to you-ward (I Thessalonians 5:18).”

Now then, conversely, I believe that the true form of “bad” luck can be found in another word… “curses.” The Bible tells us that “The curse of Jehovah is in the house of the wicked; But he blesseth the habitation of the righteous (Proverbs 3:33).” Furthermore, the Bible tells us that “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us… (Galations 3:13).”

Please understand, I’m not saying that Christians are free from bad luck or “curses.” I am a clear testimony to that. What I am saying though is that in the heart and mind of a true believer, Jesus has set this individual free from the power and effect that a curse could otherwise hold on his/her life. People will still curse you, perhaps even moreso if you become a believer, but your blessings will be far greater.

Now then, in regard to blessings I want to watch where I tread here, because when I use the term “blessing”… I want to use it in the truest sense of the word.

One definition for the word “blessing” is as follows; Something promoting or contributing to happiness, well-being, or prosperity; a boon. I feel as though this secular definition is very apropos to the Christian life. Happiness and well-being are not defined by physical tangible objects. Rather, they are merely a state of mind (sorry if I’m sounding a little too Zen here).

Moving on, If God bestows a favor upon us (grace) or holds back His judgment from us (mercy), either way it is a direct blessing upon our life and we are to joyfully give thanks. In one instance, we are receiving something, but in another instance we are not receiving something. Either way… it is a blessing.

However, if God does not grant us exactly what we want and things don’t always go our way, we should also give thanks to Him. Doing so not only helps to change the way that we look at life, but in a simplified manner of speaking… it helps us to “reverse the curse” of having to struggle and survive amidst the turmoil of a fallen world. I’m not saying it’s easy, but it can be done. My grandmother was a perfect example of this and I could write a book about her life… but I’ll leave that for later.

So, Should we Believe in Luck?

My answer to that question is in the affirmative… absolutely NOT! If blessings are the truest form of luck… which I believe they are, then we are to recognize them for what they are. Specifically, another text-book definition for blessing is “the invoking of God’s favor upon a person.” We are to believe only in the One who gives the blessing… not in the blessing itself.

For example, God is the One we follow, and the blessing(s) that He bestows upon us are simply objects or outpourings of His love… nothing more. When someone tells you there is “power in prayer” you should remind them that the “real power is in God.” I’m not going to get into prosperity theology here, because my point is that only God is to be worshiped… not anything that He has done or created.

Now I don’t mean to get on the religious high-horse here, so feel free to let me know if I’m wrong on this. As fallible as I am, I know that I’ve been wrong on a lot of things.

This much I know for sure though; it’s a bad idea to believe in luck to find happiness (whether through gambling, lying, stealing, etc.). If you do find happiness in those things… it will not last for long and it will likely end up costing you more in this life and potentially a lot more in eternity.

Only Jesus can bring about real happiness. Believe in Him and Him alone.

Introduction

This is a tech review article. As such, I’m going to try my best to compare the two operating systems that I use on a fairly regular basis (Windows Vista at home and Mac OS 10.4.11 at work). Sorry, I don’t have 10.5 Leopard yet. As always, my final analysis will be at the end of this posting.

Forward

Windows or Mac? That’s sort of like asking a person the following question: “Which do you prefer… a Mercedes Benz or a BMW?”

I’m saying this because of the fact that Mac OS 10.4.11 and Windows Vista are very similar operating systems. As much as they may want to deny it, they’ve both copied some things from each other. That much is obvious. In spite of their striking similarities, there are still some significant differences. So let’s get to it.

General Appearance

Windows Vista has a very clean GUI (Graphical User Interface) and I like the way in which the system chrome can be made to be semi-transparent in order to more easily see pallets that are hidden behind things. In addition, the drop shadow effect on the pallets is a nice touch as well. As always, the start bar can be moved to any one of the four corners of the screen (top, left, right, bottom) and it can also be hidden and locked.

Similarly, Mac OS 10.4.11 has a very simple and yet elegant GUI. As always, the Mac finder bar (similar to the Windows start bar) is located at the top of the desktop and it cannot be moved around. The application dock (used for quick desktop launching) can be positioned on either the left, right or default bottom area. It has a cool genie effect that quickly magnifies the program alias icons (similar to shortuts in Windows) . It makes them real big as you roll the mouse over them and then shrinks them back down once the mouse rolls off. Alias icon sizes can be custom made, but the dock itself cannot be hidden.

Advantage: Windows Vista

Navigation

The Mac OS is structured in a way that the primary hard drive (usually the C: drive on a PC) always has a direct alias link icon on the desktop. This icon can be moved around, resized, made to show the content size, and even color coded. Color coding folders and icons is a cool new feature in the Mac OS and I use it a lot. However, one major drawback is that the hard drive icon cannot be deleted from the desktop. That can be extremely frustrating for an organizational junkie like me, because I prefer to have my desktop completely crystal clear of any and all clutter. That’s what personal folders on the hard drive are for!!! Anyway, the programs are all saved in the “Applications” folder located directly within the hard drive and they are very easy to get to. Speaking of the applications, I love the fact that all the files necessary to launch and run a program are contained within one executable file within the Applications folder. There are no dangling “.exe” or “.dll” files that you have to figure out where they are or even how you lost them in the first place!

Windows Vista has followed in the footsteps of XP by including a “My Computer” button link on the right side of the start bar window. Just as it was before, you cannot delete it from this area. The same goes for the other common buttons that Windows typically includes, such as the Search, Recent Items, Connect to, Control Panel and Network Neighborhood buttons. The one thing that I’ve always loved about Windows is the ability to create, rename, cut, copy and paste both folders and files from within actual programs… instead of having to go through the Windows Explorer. Vista is no different in that regard. and I find it to be eeeextremely convenient. Aside from that, the new “Connect To” button on the start bar makes it easy to run a quick check on available WiFi connection receptions in the area. The AirPort feature on the Mac OS is not quite as easy to use in that regard.

Advantage: Windows Vista

Performance

My iMac at work is about two years old and it’s running the original Intel Core Duo Processor. The RAM is about 2 gigs and I believe that the hard drive space is around 120 gigs. For the most part, it pretty much purrs like a kitten. I leave the computer on all the time when I leave the office and it goes into hybrid sleep mode shortly thereafter. I have only had to perform an actual “hard restart” perhaps three or four times in the last two years. Strangely enough, some of it’s main performance issues are with Microsoft Office applications. However, I did have an issue with Apple iChat that got so bad, I actually had to remove the application and reinstall it. The Apple Safari browser also seemed to have a lot of stability issues… which is why I generally prefer either Camino, Netscape, Opera, or Mozilla Firefox for web browsing. The “Apple-Option-Escape” process usually works the first time when trying to force quit out of an application. So… I’m pretty much all smiles.

My Toshiba Satellite A215-7428 series model laptop is about four months old. It ‘s running the AMD Athlon x2 64-bit dual core TK-55 processor. It also has a fairly basic ATI Radeon graphics card built in. The RAM is about 2 gigs and I believe that the hard drive space is a little under 150 gigs. So as you can see, the specs are fairly similar on the Mac and the PC… but the actual performance is not. Vista seems to be a bit of a memory hog. For me, it’s gotten to the point that I don’t have any program set to auto-start when I first boot up the computer… because the boot and reboot process itself usually takes about 2-4 minutes on it’s own. Obviously, the more programs I have open, the more problems I encounter… and using the “Ctrl-Alt-Delete” combination doesn’t always close an application the first time. Invariably, I have to keep doing the “alt-F4″ combo in order to manually “end-task” on a program. Microsoft Internet Explorer is by-far the worst application that I currently have on my laptop… and for some reason, Microsoft found a way to make it very difficult for me to uninstall this particular program as well. I have some adware pop-up problems… and I’m too cheap to actually go out and buy Norton, Symantec or McAfee antivirus software. My current Windows Experience Index rating is 3.0 on a 5.9 scale(sigh).

Advantage: Definitely Mac OS 10.4.11

Miscellaneous

Vista uses a new patented flip-navigation technology called Aero and it is available in every version aside from the Home Basic version. Flip navigation allows you to preview all of your active windows or pallets in 3D space and toggle through them like a deck of cards to more easily get to the pallet you want to work in. Although I don’t personally use it, I do like the idea of flip navigation technology in general and I feel as though it has a lot of good uses. I believe that the now defunct Longhorn version of Windows was supposed to actually go a step further and allow full 3-dimensional control of the pallets, but apparently they figured that this idea was likely going to create a little too much of a performance problem for most computers. Aside from that, the only other notable change is the addition of the new Gadget application that can give you the current weather, RSS news feeds, stocks, sports scores, whatever you want… of course, providing that you are connected to the internet. This application comes pre-installed on most computers that run Vista. Apparently, Microsoft had the Google Desktop developers design an alternative to the popular Widget application on Macs. The only major difference is that the Google Gadget sits right out in the open on the desktop whereas the Widgets on the Mac OS are actually hidden from view and completely off of the desktop. Initially I liked the Gadgets, but I eventually decided to turn it off since the auto-start feature was really slowing down my system on start-up.

Mac OS 10.4.11 has completely removed the popular Sherlock search feature and replaced it with Spotlight technology on the top right corner of the finder window. The searches seem to be pretty quick and thorough. However, the really nice part is that every pallet window automatically has a Spotlight search engine built into it… for those times when you just want to do a quick specific search within a certain folder or group of folders. As stated before, the genie effect on the dock is a nice feature, because you can make your desktop icons really small and unobtrusive (like I do), but then each icon automatically gets real big and easy to read the moment you roll the mouse over it. I like that. The new Widget feature (mentioned above) is also nice, even if it’s a little on the annoying side. Since the Widgets are not actually hidden anywhere on the desktop, you have to set-up what are called “hot-corners” in order to see them. This is a type of behavior that you configure in the system settings in order to make something appear when the mouse moves to one of the four corners of the screen. For example, you can set it up so that the Widgets fly onto the screen when you move the cursor all the way down to the bottom right corner. That sounds all well and good… but the only problem is that I often times find myself activating the Widget by accident when I really didn’t mean to do so. Still, it is a very nice feature to have, in spite of this fact.

Advantage: Mac OS 10.4.11

Final Analysis

Honestly, there’s no doubt in my mind that Mac OS 10.4.11 is superior overall. While the interface may not be as interesting as the new Windows Vista… the superior performance quality more than makes up for it’s shortcomings.

Plus, you can now run almost any version of Windows either on a separate partition within Boot Camp or as a virtual machine disc image on any Mac that has a core duo processor… so you can have the best of both worlds. This is accomplished by using either Parallels Desktop of VMware Fusion commercial software. I use both of them at the office and I can tell you that they both work just fine.

So then, you’re probably wondering what a Mac-Nazi like me is doing with a PC laptop. Well, it’s just a matter of economics. Simple as that. If I can buy three cheap PC laptops for the price of one Mac laptop… then I will do it anytime and I won’t think twice about it. Don’t get me wrong… I like Macs a lot… but I also like having money in the bank just a little bit more.

-fin-