Some Thoughts on "Resistance to Civil Government"

Reading and discussing "Resistance to Civil Government" in a college English course has inspired thought in me about the role of civil disobedience in the modern political sphere, which I thought might be interesting enough to be worth sharing with all of you. Can one person, by openly resisting the practices of a system he disagrees with, alter the course of political discourse or lawmaking in this country? Does one person's dissenting opinion carry any weight in this age of lobbyists and political machines?

A contemporary example which springs to mind is that of the Tea Party, a neoconservative fringe group whose Fox News-inspired antics and protests have garnered considerable media coverage in recent months. Touting picket signs whose slogans question President Obama's nationality and oftentimes seem to encourage a violent takeover ("taking back") of the federal government, these "activists" have been successful in swaying many Republican congresspeople into blocking progress on the health care reform bills endorsed by progressives.

While these people have certainly become a thorn in the sides of our Democratic leaders, is their resistance and protestation the kind which Thoreau intended? I would argue that it isn't, because these activists are still working within the system. As I interpret it, "resistance to civil government" entails removing one's self entirely from the system, escaping the forms of governance you see as repressive in favor of an alternative all your own. You reject government, reject authority, reject the machine and instead adopt a personal system of ethical standards by which to govern one's self.

Much like the civil rights protesters in the 1960s and the gay rights activists today, one must remove one's self from the system, remove one's self from the law and live the way you believe is just, live by the self-imposed laws you find fairest. In this way I believe the spirit of Thoreau's resistance lives on through those protesters and demonstrators who fight for equal rights for homosexuals. The essence of his ideas is there: that the protest exists firstly in one's mind, and is not bound by the traditional avenues of political discourse. M.

Faux News: How to Shamelessly Indoctrinate

This issue has been an intensely-debated and personal item for me over the last few years. In a secular country whose currency reads “In God We Trust” and whose public schools are adopting Creationism as curriculum, it’s a difficult time to be a Freethinker. Even our Pledge of Allegiance was hijacked in 1954 by adding the words “under God,” a reflexive theocratic measure at the height of McCarthyism and the Red Scare. There are proponents of change, myself included, who would like to see the United States return to its roots - its real roots - by abolishing the federal endorsements of religion which run rampant in our modern government. But our efforts are thoroughly rebuffed by conservative activists who, ironically enough, would like to change our nation’s focus from one of secularism, fairness and equality to one of religious hysteria and theocracy. God does not run my country. His place is in your churches and Bible studies, but not on my greenback. Not in my Congress. The only hope now is that secularists, both those who profess a religion and who reject it, can steer our culture away from the right-wing aims, away from the theocratic nonsense we all decry when implemented in Muslim countries, and prevent a religious police state, prevent a Christian shari'ah from taking root in the land where “freedom of religion” is not only the norm but the rule. This is our country, too. Neoconservative media outlet Fox News is among the last bastions standing in my way - in our way - and I cannot tolerate intolerance.

“Ninety percent of us believe that there is a god,” explains Fox News political commentator Glenn Beck to his ever-expanding audience, “Ninety percent! Yet we seem to be pushed around by ten percent.” Mr. Beck, here citing fabricated statistics as a lead-in to his story about prayer in public schools, has historically shown blatant and uncompromising disregard for the growing population of nonbelievers (i.e., atheists, agnostics and unaffiliated nonreligious) occupying the country he cares for so dearly. Framed by the imposing headline “Stealing of America” and flanked by the American flag, he continues, “And I don’t care, you don’t believe in god, you want to worship a broom, I could really care less” (Beck). Imagine another political pundit on another station using his airtime to mock the Christian faith, likening their strongly-held religious convictions to paganism or fairy-worship. Why, it would be near impossible for such an unapologetic commentator to dodge the lynch mobs on his way home from the studio! Then why is it possible for the hyper-conservative political “pundits,” including Glenn Beck and others, to get away with such hateful mockery and conspiratorial derision? Is it simply because their so-called media outlet, cable’s popular Fox News Channel, boasts a decades-old reputation of misinformation, one-sided smear campaigns, and propagandizing? Are Fox’s ideas indicative of a massive, Christianizing grassroots movement in this country? Beck’s comments are typical of Fox News’ longstanding campaign to marginalize and silence religious minorities - specifically atheists and Muslims - from the forum of political discourse in the United States.

As opposed to Beck’s claimed 90% supermajority, a recent Pew Research survey found that a respectable 16.1% of the country expressed non-belief or non-affiliation. Interestingly, however, they also discovered that zero senators or congressmen represented these beliefs in the federal legislative branch, with Jews, Catholics and Mormons being overrepresented by as much as a factor of 10 (Pew Research). And, to be honest, can you blame atheists for not even bothering to run for public office when statistics indicate a vast majority of Americans would consider voting for every other minority group candidate before an atheist (Paper)? Whether Beck actually believes that various forms of theism have a ninety percent majority in our country is irrelevant, but what is important is that he is misinforming the public and making arguments based on flawed logic and generalizations, which invalidate him as a credible source for factual information, not to mention political news. Credibility aside, Beck’s statements are uncalled for and downright offensive to whatever atheists are unlucky enough to view his program, and he’s a perfect example of the double standard for mass media political commentary regarding religion in this country: those with a god can say whatever they damn well please, and we without one are expected to grin and bear it. Tolerance, they’d remind us, is one of their virtues.

Don’t misunderstand, I acknowledge that we atheists have our fair share of offensive proponents as well. Antitheists, practitioners of a branch of militant atheism, take their personal message of hate to Christians and other religious groups everywhere, methodology ranging from vitriolic internet personalities shouting tirades to dangerous activists utilizing terroristic violence to make a point. Christian groups, too, have their dangerous fringe elements, from the ubiquitous neoconservative Evangelical Christian groups nationwide to the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, whose members protest military funerals toting signs with such colorful slogans as “Thank God for dead soldiers” and “Fags die, God laughs” (“Extremism in America”). Much like most Christians would find such platforms offensive and ridiculous, not all atheists agree or even tolerate our forms of zealots, who hijack our beliefs and make give all nonbelievers a bad name. In the same vein, not all Christians would endorse the sarcastic disrespect of aforementioned political commentators, but for some reason everyone seems to tolerate it. While our two parallel groups share similarities, the difference is the audience - the Christians’ dogmatists are given a massive platform and maniacal cultural sway, and their hate speech is allowed to flow freely and unabashedly over the airwaves and into television screens nationwide. Imagine if such an audience were readily accessible to atheist or even antitheist activists, what a starkly different world we’d be discussing!

A prime example of Fox News’ concerted effort to marginalize atheists from the table of political discourse is the case of President Barack Obama’s historic inaugural address this January. Morning political commentary program Fox & Friends took issue with one line in particular, evident of their ignorant intolerance, cultural phobia, and their provincial sensibilities. “We are a nation of Christians and Muslims,” intoned Obama, “Jews and Hindus - and nonbelievers” (Briggs and Huckabee). As an atheist, I remember exactly how this quote made me feel when I heard it live on the date itself. Trapped in a country drowning in Christian overrepresentation, even this tiny act of inclusion on such an international stage warmed my heart and rekindled my hope for positive change over next four years. However, Fox & Friends co-host Dave Briggs had another opinion entirely of the line, asking viewers “Was it all-inclusive to acknowledge nonbelievers or just offensive?” (Briggs and Huckabee).

Offensive to whom, exactly? To the Christians who were also mentioned, and in fact acknowledged before anyone else? Or offensive to the far-right neoconservative wing of the Republican party who Fox News historically caters to almost exclusively? Former Republican presidential frontrunner turned Fox News commentator Mike Huckabee sheds some light on the issue, explaining to Briggs that “...it’s an honest assessment that there are certainly many people in this country that [sic] are not believers in anything other than themselves” (Briggs and Huckabee). Well, doesn’t that sound familiar? It would appear that both Mike Huckabee and his colleague Glenn Beck had been guzzling the same insensitivity Kool-Aid that morning, because implying that atheists only believe in ourselves is as ignorant, childish, and stupid as alleging that we worship brooms. In addition, the former assertion is highly offensive to Broom-Worshippers worldwide, a target audience Beck may wish to rethink alienating.

To most rational people, the implication that atheists believe in nothing but ourselves is complete hogwash, but the idea is prototypical of an ignorant sort of thinking which resonates with a great number of people throughout the country. Misconceptions about atheism abound, due in part to the countless and oftentimes-subtextual lies disseminated by conservative smear artists like the Fox News anchors. When I first arrived at university, I was reluctant to share my non-belief with people. One classmate in particular did find out, through one avenue or another, and confronted me thusly, “So, since you don’t believe in God, you drink, do drugs, have sex, and stuff like that?” Though offended, I quickly informed him that, “No, as a matter of fact I don’t do any of those things, and even if I chose to it wouldn’t be because I’m an atheist.” The conception that a non-believer could have a complex and hard-fought ethical coda floors many Christians, and this notion that all atheists are hedonists stems from the paranoid misinformation from right-wing hate machines, including our beloved Fox News. This line of thinking is also fruit of religious indoctrination, which misleads millions into thinking that moral standards and codes are dictated to you, not discovered for yourself. It boggles the mind that so many otherwise unique and intelligent individuals subject themselves to the nonsensical rantings of Christian preachers, and that people adopt the force-fed morality without a second thought. Take Emerson’s advice and “make your own Bible!” My personal favorite part of the story is that this particular Catholic Christian student directed his accusation at me from behind a can of Natural Light, which he imbibed in its entirety moments later. Ad maiorem Dei gloriam, right?

What’s more, the fact that such a prominent conservative Republican figure as Mike Huckabee could be repositioned as political commentator and host of the eponymous Huckabee proves Fox’s political bias to be sure, but for rational viewers this accusation was never in question. Fox News has their right to plug and campaign whichever side of the political fence they so choose, and we as the viewer have our right not to take them seriously. But it’s in the realm of religion in particular where Fox markedly and repeatedly crosses the line and outs themselves as politically incorrect, insensitive ignoramuses. For example, in yet another instance of blind hatred and conspiratorial fear, the gang at Fox & Friends stirred the pot yet again while commenting on a Washington state controversy involving an atheist sign placed in close proximity to a Christian nativity scene. The sign was stolen, presumably by pro-religion activists, and the atheist organization was moving to replace it with another sign channeling Moses, ironically reading “Thou shalt not steal.” In my personal opinion, this would be a perfectly understandable and acceptable response, and I’d expect something similar from Christians or any other religious group if their displays were violated or stolen.

Not only did former beauty pageant star and co-host Gretchen Carlson become visibly and admittedly enraged over the incident, she deferred to neoconservative regular guest Michelle Malkin to offer her thoughts on the issue, who in turn encouraged viewers to first “ignore atheists” by likening them to attention-whoring internet “trolls,” and then explains that “making fun of them, too, and mockery is probably the second-best solution” (Carlson and Malkin). She even instructs the audience to “Let them make fools of themselves in public square and say a prayer for them.” In response to this despicably galling commentary from a supposed political “expert,” Carlson - who’d been completely unable to recognize the irony in their quoting a Commandment, and stupidly thought the atheists idiots for using the other side’s beliefs - indulges in a bit of sensationalism, spelling out that “if you let them do that, then over time they will have the control… If you don’t stand up and fight for it, it might just disappear! I’m talking about Christianity!” (Carlson and Malkin). Danger, Christians, danger!

In the most Christian country in the world, when backed by a formidable 76.9% majority, is there really any chance of Christianity up and disappearing? Of course not. This sort of uninformed and misleading scare tactic is one employed almost daily by Fox News anchors in order to strike an emotional nerve within their viewerships’ traditionalist sensibilities. Atheism, ladies and gentlemen, is nowhere near powerful or influential enough to do away with Christianity altogether - some of my more antagonistic atheist friends are thinking, “One can only dream.” But in reality, it’s altogether possible - indeed, proven likely by European countries - that large numbers of Christians and atheists can coexist peacefully with one another, without either of them disappearing into thin air. And, oddly enough, doesn’t their Rapture entail all of the god-fearing Christians suddenly disappearing from the face of the Earth, leaving their clothes and belongings behind to be destroyed in the coming apocalyptic holocaust - one which we atheists are sentenced to endure? So, in theory, wouldn’t it be a positive thing for all the Christians in this country to be suddenly and without warning teleported to heaven, evidently disappearing from the world? Sounds like somebody needs a refresher course on Revelations. I digress.

With vitriolic rhetoric such as this, it’s easy for fear-mongering political activist groups like Fox News to rile a paranoid fervor in their viewers. Is it any surprise that fringe conservative elements throughout the country feel threatened and phobic about the increasing population of atheists, assuming that we want to indoctrinate their children and supplant their lifestyles with secular ones? This fundamental misunderstanding of the secularist movement as a threat is a dangerous one for atheists such as myself, and is a myth propagated by dictatorial media pundits like Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly and Mike Huckabee. If this conspiratorial trend continues, and the marginalization and belittlement of the opposition by such polarizing figures persists, this country’s looming culture war will undoubtedly reach a frightening tipping point, and I sincerely hope that Beck’s misleading lies will be the only things he’s culpable for. M.

---------

1. Citing Atheists Offensive in Obama Inaugural Address? Perf. Dave Briggs and Mike Huckabee. YouTube, 25 Jan. 2009. Web. 1 Nov. 2009. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twoXZE9U0Io.
   
2. "Extremism in America - Westboro Baptist Church: About WBC." Anti-Defamation League. Web. 04 Nov. 2009. http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/WBC/.
   
3. Gaylor, Annie L. "Is America a Christian Nation?" Freedom From Religion Foundation, 2007. Web. 26 Oct. 2009. http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/xian.php.
   
4. Glenn Beck Attacks Atheists and Interviews James Dobson on School Prayer. Perf. Glenn Beck. YouTube, 25 Jan. 2009. Web. 1 Nov. 2009. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJJlgNf06ek.
   
5. Lind, Michael. "America is not a Christian nation." Salon.com. Web. 26 Oct. 2009. http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/04/14/christian_nation/.
   
6. Michelle Malkin: Atheists Should Be Treated Like "Trolls." Perf. Gretchen Carlson and Michelle Malkin. YouTube, 18 Dec. 2008. Web. 1 Nov. 2009. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brBqkmzN4js&feature=related.
   
7. Paper, Tom. "US Presidential Voting Likelihoods." Data 360. 30 May 2007. 26 Oct. 2009. http://www.data360.org/report_slides.aspx?Print_Group_Id=99.
   
8. Pearlston, Carl. "Is America a Christian Nation?" Catholic Education Resource Center. 26 Oct. 2009. http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/politics/pg0040.html.
   
9. "The Religious Makeup of Congress." Pew Research Center. Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, 19 Dec. 2008. Web. 01 Nov. 2009. http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1064/the-religious-makeup-of-congress.
   
10. "United States Constitution." The U.S. Constitution Online. Web. 26 Oct. 2009. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html.

On "Self-Reliance"

Today I've got something a little more personal for all of you. Upon a recent reading of Ralph Waldo Emerson's Self-Reliance, I was inspired to pen a quick reflection on the essay's fundamental ideas. Thought my readers might find it interesting; enjoy.

For an online copy of the text of the essay, click here.

The passage in Emerson's Self-Reliance that struck me most was in the final paragraph, where Emerson assures the reader that "Nothing can bring you peace but yourself. Nothing can bring you peace but the triumph of principles." For me, these lines inspire and vindicate me simultaneously, as an affirmation that my lifestyle is the right course of action and that it's worth continuing to pursue. Allow me to explain.

Another quote attributed to Mr. Emerson is "Make your own Bible," an idea that has driven my intellectual development for several years now. During high school, I rejected a religious faith I found repressive, distorted and irrational in favor of secular humanism, a personal atheism infused with a complex and self-imposed ethical system. With no moral authority to [mis]lead me, I developed a sense of morality and ethics on my own to live my life by, and after years of self-examination produced a system I believe to be the most ethically justifiable and objectively forward possible. It shocks many traditional Christians to find that the moral standards I hold myself to are oftentimes more strict than their own!

The reason, I believe, for this consistency is that I developed and discovered my ideals for myself - I myself stumbled upon the pure goodness of human rights, the importance of respecting women as an equal and not a sexual object, the nobility of playing the role of consistent gentleman. My uncompromising emotional sobriety has earned me a two-sided reputation in college, my atheism creating countless enemies and my straightforward ethical grounding earning respect amongst my friends. And the best part is, I wouldn't have it any other way. As Thoreau put it, "A man in the right is a majority of one."

And so Emerson's promise of peace to those who live by their principles grants me solace during a trying time of my life. It's difficult at times to stay true to my hard-fought ideals, but in the end, Emerson offers a priceless sense of optimism. And I'm inclined to agree with him. Thanks, M.

“Let Me Hear Both Sides:” Radiohead and the American Tradition of Political Discourse

In recent years, political platforms endorsed by rock musicians been elevated to a prominent position in popular culture and in the psyches of mainstream Americans. Artists with uncompromising ideologies from Bob Dylan to John Lennon have been able to affect dramatic change in our nation’s political sphere through the impact of their music in culture. Doubtless one of the most influential artistic forces in music today, experimental rock band Radiohead has defied conventions and shattered expectations for almost two decades. With each new album, the English musicians have reinvented their sound and musical style, blurring the lines dividing alternative rock, electronica and jazz while exceeding fans’ every expectation. While their influence in the world of music is incontrovertible, Radiohead recently took a distinctly more political turn with 2003’s Hail to the Thief, which, predictably, offered the band’s perspective on the contemporary political climate in the United States. Taking cues from conventional political calls to action like Common Sense by Thomas Paine, Radiohead exercised and advanced traditional modes of political discourse in this country.

No time period in recent memory have been as politically divisive as the opening years of this new century. George W. Bush’s controversial and contested victory in the 2000 presidential election fragmented the country into polarized political extremes, followed soon thereafter by the psychological trauma and cultural panic that was September 11, 2001. This environment of political turmoil produced a great amount of political backlash, including near-universal polarization of mainstream perceptions of government organizations and leadership, ranging from resentment towards leadership officials and rebelliousness to virulent patriotism and widespread support of armed forces shipped overseas. This polarized culture produced some of the most emotionally-charged political activism in history, and is reminiscent of the pre-Revolution America within which Thomas Paine found himself: widespread popular discontentment with the system of authority, a culture itching for upheaval and revolution, and militaristic elements approaching their boiling points. But why should a bunch of postmodern rock stars like Radiohead be labeled our century’s equivalent of Thomas Paine?

The fact of the matter is, popular culture icons have supplanted historical geniuses in the minds of everyday Americans, and musicians like Thom Yorke, Radiohead’s lead vocalist and songwriter, have become the movers and shakers of our media-fueled society. Radiohead is considered a “concept album” band, each release embodying and working from within a central idea or overarching theme. For 1997’s OK Computer it was isolation and detachment in a technological society, for 2000’s Kid A it was mother nature’s reclamation of human civilization as a result of biotechnology and rampant consumerism (“Radiohead's Anti-videos”), and for 2003’s Hail to the Thief it was political discontentment and ideological revolution. Anyone unfamiliar with the music of Radiohead would balk at these suggestions: is it even possible for such complex ideas to be properly expressed through a medium as low-brow as rock music?

In the time of Thomas Paine’s political activism, ideas were expressed almost exclusively in the form of political tracts, lengthy or, oftentimes the case for Paine’s essays, short enough to be printed upon a massively disseminated series of pamphlets. These articles could be as emotionally charged as any rock ballad today, with admonitions of pacifist countrymen like “challeng[ing] the warmest advocate for reconciliation to show a single advantage that this continent can reap by being connected to Great Britain” (Paine 994), or arguments appealing to pathos like “the injuries and disadvantages which we sustain by that connection are without number, and our duty to mankind at large… instruct[s] us to renounce the alliance” (Paine 994). In truth, political pamphlets containing vitriolic language and an uncompromising commitment to change could be considered the angst-ridden “rock anthems” of the eighteenth century colonies.

A real modern example of the rock anthem, “2+2=5,” opener of Hail to the Thief - while obviously inspired more by Orwell’s dystopias than by the political treatises of Thomas Paine, - nonetheless presents a great deal of politically-charged information right from the beginning. The album’s vocals begin with Yorke asking an anonymous authority mockingly, “Are you such a dreamer / To put the world to rights?” As the song progresses, however, his perspective becomes increasingly pessimistic, mentioning that “January has April's showers / And two and two always makes a five,” casting doubt upon the administration’s rejection of climate change science by likening it to the Oceanic doublespeak in George Orwell’s classic 1984. Additionally, every track on the album is listed with its subtitle in parentheses, and the composition’s full name is “2+2=5 (The Lukewarm.),” suggesting that the intended audience of Yorke’s lyrics is political moderates and apathetic swing voters. Immediately after Thom mourns the environment’s being led to ruin comes the song’s volta, “It’s the devil’s way now / There is no way out / You can scream and you can shout / It is too late now / Because you have not been paying attention.” I fail to imagine a clearer call to arms than the frustrated lyrics here, as he repeats those last few words in a repetitive, deranged whine until the song’s conclusion.

While other songs on Hail to the Thief are less activist and more personal to writer Yorke, who dedicated multiple tracks to his newborn son - specifically, “Sail to the Moon,” - the primary focus of the work was to reflect the tumultuous political climate within which Yorke’s dystopian vision was composed. In a 2003 interview with NME magazine, Yorke provided a little more context for the album’s subject matter and stylistic elements, explaining that his listening to common buzzwords and phrases on the radio in the months following September 11, the War on Terrorism, and Afghanistan inspired the lyrics and imagery that makes the album so unique. “I was cutting these [phrases] out,” said Yorke, “and deliberately taking them out of context, so they're like wallpaper,” a wallpaper with which he framed his apocalyptic reverie (27).

Exploitation is an argument utilized by both Thomases Paine and Yorke, and each make convincing emotional appeals to readers’ or listeners’ pathos. For Paine, this exploitation came in the form of the British taking advantage of the American colonies, asking of those wishing to make peace with the overseas aggressors to “tell [him] whether you can hereafter love, honour, and faithfully serve the power that hath carried fire and sword into your land?” (996) He also challenges pacifists to answer whether they “can still pass the violations over… hath your house been burnt? Hath your property been destroyed before your face? Are your wife and children destitute of a bed to lie on, or bread to live on?” These are all strong emotional appeals designed to rile a defensive aggression in readers, and to inspire them to reject the system of governance which had imposed such perceived injustices upon them.

In the case of Radiohead, exploitation of the working class at the hands of the capitalist machine is the subject of “We Suck Young Blood (Your Time Is Up.),” a nightmarish piano ballad which could define the album’s distinctive sound. Between handclaps and haunting backup vocals Yorke asks of potential laborers, “Are you hungry? / Are you sick? / Are you begging for a break? ... Are you strung up by the wrists? / We want the young blood,” casting monopolizing corporations as vampirish monsters preying on the weak and disadvantaged (“We [Capitalists]” 116). Thom’s distinctive falsetto wailing continues for another five minutes, interlaced with intense piano crescendos and a cappella backup vocals. The result is an effective metaphor relating real capitalism with a terrifying horror film where controlling vampires exploit the dependent elements of society, producing a memorable and visceral image in listeners’ minds.

Yorke, in the spirit of Paine, uses his art form to affect serious political change in contemporary society, utilizing similar rhetoric and presenting traditional arguments in a nontraditional and atypical media. Although separated by centuries and for the most part ignorant of one another, one cannot help but imagine that both Thomases would have gotten along famously, as both of them encouraged their cultures to, as Paine intones on page 997, “oppose not only the tyranny but the tyrant, stand forth! … and prepare an asylum for mankind.” M.

---------

1. Harris, Shannon M. "Thomas Paine 1737-1809" Heath Anthology of American Literature. 6th ed. Vol. A. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2009. 989-91.
2. Paine, Thomas. "From Common Sense" Heath Anthology of American Literature. 6th ed. Vol. A. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2009. 992-7.
3. Tate, Joseph. "Radiohead's Anti-videos: Works of Art in the Age of Electronic Reproduction." Postmodern Culture 12.3 (2002). Postmodern Culture. Web. 21 Oct. 2009. http://pmc.iath.virginia.edu/issue.502/12.3tate.html.
4. Tate, Joseph. "We (Capitalists) Suck Young Blood." Radiohead and Philosophy. Ed. Brandon W. Forbes and George A. Reisch. Chicago, IL: Open Court, 2009. 111-21.
5. NME Magazine. 3 May 2003: 27. Print.
6. Yorke, Thom. Hail to the Thief. Radiohead. Nigel Godrich, 2003. CD.

Apple's New Offerings

What exciting news this morning to notice that Apple's online store was down, traditionally a key indicator that they're covertly updating one of their world-famous product lines. It stung, yes, to see these new updates a mere two weeks after posting this article about the company's apparent stagnation in the innovation sphere, but the new products are a welcome change nonetheless. I have a lot of opinions regarding Apple's newest product releases, and I'd like to share them with you here.

MacBook
The consumer-focused MacBook line, with the brief exception of a 13.3" aluminum model bearing the moniker for a few months, has seen zero changes from the design standpoint since its inception in May 2006. The low-end $999 option has been carried over since the introduction of aluminum unibody MacBook Pros as an affordable alternative with marketing targeted at students. The economical carryover has since become the only remaining non-aluminum system in Apple's lineup, and remains so even after this morning's design refresh.

The new white MacBook features a polycarbonate unibody design, a casing sculpted from plastic rather than from aluminum. It sports a speedier processor (2.26 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo) and larger internal hard drive (250GB, larger even than the cheapest 13.3" MacBook Pro's measly 160GB). The most noticeable change is the dramatically curved corners and tapered edges, which give the notebook a distinctly pebble-esque appearance. Perhaps most importantly of all, the MacBook now boasts the multi-touch glass trackpad used in the MacBook Pro line, bringing multi-finger gestures and more to the low-end economy option.

For a fresh[er] design and a price point sure to attract students the world around, the new, redesigned polycarbonate MacBook earns an 8.3 out of 10.

Mac mini
The littlest Mac has been around since 2005, and in that time has not even once been physically redesigned. I'd been hoping for something exciting today, something with the width of the Apple TV and the footprint of an Airport Express (an exaggeration to be sure, but perhaps someday a possibility), but was again disappointed by the lackluster effort that seems to plague Apple of late, inspiring my latest blog post. The hard drive sizes doubled (160GB and a generous 320GB), the lowest price dropped $100 to $599, and - most interestingly - a new "Snow Leopard Server" option was introduced for $999 with no optical drive and 1TB of storage.

For a sheer lack of effort and disappointing subtle alterations, the virtually unchanged Mac mini receives a 4.6 out of 10. The server option is what saved this "update" from oblivion.

iMac
While the aforementioned products are great and all, the real news today is the refreshed iMac line, with a couple improvements which, to be honest, blew my mind. Sporting a new unibody enclosure reminiscent of their 24" LED Display, the flagship Mac brings new processors and hard drive capacities to the table. But the real story of the iMac itself is its display: available in either a 21.5" or massive 27", this looming, gargantuan beast of a screen utilizes the environmentally-friendly LED backlighting to illuminate its ridiculous 2560 x 1440 pixels (that's 16:9, the same aspect ratio in HDTVs). While the screen is truly incredible, let's speak for a moment about the real marvel: the peripherals.

On August 2, 2005, Apple introduced Mighty Mouse, a computer mouse with a scroll ball for easily navigating documents and web pages in 360 degrees. The little wonder has reigned supreme for over four years now, but customers (myself included) have experienced issues with the little scroll ball, which over time refuses to operate. In conjunction with these issues, Apple recently came under fire for the name "Mighty Mouse," which was suggested to be in violation of a great number of copyrights. Well, today Apple replaced their bundle of joy with something much, much nicer.

It's called Magic Mouse, and it's the world's first multi-touch computer mouse. Making use of Apple's revolutionary multi-touch technology, Magic Mouse enables you to scroll and navigate documents and web pages - the functions of their faulty scroll ball - with a flick of your finger across its surface. Essentially, the Magic Mouse is a MacBook Pro's multi-touch trackpad draped over a computer mouse's form factor, and the results are as beautiful to behold as they are exciting to use. Oh, and it's exclusively Bluetooth. Not only that, but the Magic Mouse now comes standard with every new iMac, along with the Apple Wireless Keyboard. Shazam!

For innovations galore, including a display that turn heads and a mouse to change mice forever, the new iMac earns a whopping 9.5 out of 10 - they still haven't gotten rid of that chin, or the annoying bump on the back. Do those two things; you earn a 10.

Thanks for reading and enjoy your days, folks. M.