Wal-Mart: Setting the Expectations

Just for fun, let's look at the world of box-box retailers from the vantage point of the knitted hats. I have a friend who sells knitted baby hats for about $12. These hats are made out of some of the best yarn money can buy, even so the material cost for each hat is only $3. That means my friend, who spends about three hours knitting together a hat, gets paid $3/hr for her hats. That’s crap!

She’s providing a service that most people don’t have the time or the knowledge to do for themselves and therefore she should get paid at least, say, $20/hr. So, in a world where she got a fair American wage, she should sell her hats for $63. But she can’t? Why? Because no one is willing to pay $60 for a knit hat anymore when they can find a comparable one at Wal-Mart for $5. Sure they’re willing to spend $12 because they’re willing to pay extra for the quality yarn. But people are not willing to pay extra for the high-quality craftsmanship of an American knitter.

Without even knowing it, my knitter friend has to compete with Asians because Americans aren't willing to pay American wages anymore for garment construction. Wal-Mart and Asian manufacturers have set American expectations for prices and consequently, quality craftmanship gets the short end of the stick. Americans craftsmen like my knitting friend have to make a decision. Either they have to make their garment quicker and therefore of poorer quality or they have to pay themselves less for the good work they go.

The big problem here is that the potential buyer doesn't see any problem at all. In fact, since they’re buying a hat for $12 they think they're being generous because they're paying $7 more than they would if they bought the comparable hat from Wal-Mart. In their mind it's like giving $7 to a worthy cause (i.e., a hardworking American craftsman) when in reality, the price the buyer is paying the craftsman is an insult.

Now here's another odd situation caused by this retail dynamic that might further shed some light on this. My wife always finds herself in a bind when people ask her to do sewing alterations. My wife, a former professional seamstress, struggles to figure out how to respond to their "I'll pay you for it" comments when friends ask.

Here's the problem. Her sewing is skilled labor of a professional...not just an amateur...as such, they should expect a decent hourly wage, say $20/hr. But, she doesn't want to charge friends full price for her work...but she doesn't like hemming pants, so she doesn't want to do it for free either, so she's inclined to charge half price...sounds reasonable, right?

But, here's the problem. People hear her request for $10 for a 60-minute hem job and they think that she's being greedy or not cutting them a deal. Why is that? Well, it's because her friend bought the pair of pants from Wal-Mart for $15, so obviously to them, the cost of hemming a pair of $15 pants must certainly be significantly less than $10.

But why are the pants only $15? Well, no pants manufactured in America are selling for $15. They’re $15 pants because they’re made in a place were Wal-Mart can pay someone pennies for hemming, heck, constructing the entire pair of pants. Consequently, by having garments made in China, Wal-Mart has convinced people that the cost of sewing together an entire pair of pants is less than $15.

The manufacturers in Asia are setting American's perception for what something should cost. Neither my wife nor our knitter friend, can get a decent wage for their quality work because big box retailers have convinced Americans that their craftsmanship isn't worth a living wage...no matter how much better it is than the craftsmanship coming out of Asia.

Time Traps

From, of all places, marthastewart.com

Time Traps: "When it comes right down to it, that luscious abundance of time we crave reflects a basic desire: to savor life. We want to drink in the rich connections we've created with our family, our community, our friends. We want to sit on the dock and throw stones in the water. Linger at the table. Hold the baby for hours, just to watch him nap. We innately understand that, when engaged in life this way, we'll find a measure of peace.

Unfortunately, this kind of time—expansive and utterly unscheduled—is at odds with our calendars, which have come to dominate our lives. And what fills them up? For most of us, the answer is simple: work. Americans spend more time earning a living than people in most other industrialized countries...

'The basic things we once took for granted—a decent house in a safe neighborhood with a good school—have become increasingly expensive,' says John de Graaf, national coordinator of Take Back Your Time and author of Affluenza: The All-Consuming Epidemic...

Time gurus point to consumer choice as yet another modern time bandit. Go to the supermarket in search of breakfast and you'll find 48 different types of cereal and 15 incarnations of milk. Sign up for cell-phone service and you'll wade through dozens of calling plans, phone styles, and accessory packages. Whether you revel in shopping or loathe it, "the massive amount of choice in the marketplace is incredibly time-consuming," says de Graaf. "These are all decisions we used to not have to make." The answer, he says, isn't to stay home and take a vow of no shopping. It's to wake up to the realities we face, and then acknowledge how our own actions help or hurt our chances of reclaiming our time."

This whole article is pretty good, and you should probably read the whole thing. My impression, however, is that the article leaves the reader with the assumption that the problem is time management and not our consumer desires. Sure making decisions to decide whether or not to buy Frosted Flakes or Frosted Mini-wheats takes time...but the very fact that we crave such things is the real problem. If we weren't so consumed with keeping up with the Jones middle class Americans wouldn't be driven to become two income families.

Why pro-lifers and pro-choices have a communication problem

I thought this essay was excellent, one of the best I've seen at identifying and analyzing the current lack of dialog between the two sides of the abortion debate. Clearly, the author is pro-life, but regardless of your position, I think you'll find his article worth reading.

FIRST THINGS: On the Square: "I submit that pro-life arguments seem absurd to any listener who has in the back of the mind a sense that the embryo or fetus is being constructed in the womb. Here’s an analogy: At what point in the automobile assembly-line process can a “car” be said to exist? I suppose most of us would point to some measure of minimum functionality (viability), like having wheels and/or a motor, but some might insist on the need for windshield wipers or say it’s not fully a car until it rolls out onto the street (is born). We would all understand, however, that there’s no clearly “right” answer as to when a car is there. And we would also agree that someone who claimed the car to be present from the insertion of the first screw at the very beginning of the assembly line would be taking an utterly absurd position. To someone who conceives of gestation as intrauterine construction, pro-life people sound just this ridiculous. For a thing being constructed is truly not there until it is nearly complete. (Moving from ordinary language to metaphysics, we would say that a constructed thing does not have its essential form until it is complete or nearly complete. And it can’t be that thing without having the form of that thing.)" ...

The difference between making and developing is not just an accident of language. Suppose we’re back in the pre-digital days and you’ve just taken a fabulous photo, one you know you will prize, with your Polaroid camera. (Say it’s a picture of a jaguar that has now darted back into the jungle, so that the photo is unrepeatable.) You are just starting to let the photo hang out to develop when I grab it and rip its cover off, thus destroying it. What would you think if I responded to your dismay with the assertion: “Hey man, it was still in the brown-smudge stage. Why should you care about brown smudges?” You would find my defense utterly absurd. Just so for pro-lifers, who find dignity in every human individual: To say that killing such a prized being doesn’t count if he or she is still developing in the womb strikes them as outrageously absurd.

By contrast, if I had simply destroyed a blank, unexposed piece of your film, you would have been much less upset. You really would have lost little more than a smudge. Passive potential does not count for much. Only developing potential already contains its own form (essence, identity), is already the what that it is in the process of manifesting.

I conclude that pro-choice folks think pro-life claims regarding embryos to be not only wrong but also absurd whenever they think (even unconsciously) that embryos are under construction in the womb. And pro-life folks find pro-choice denials of prized human dignity in embryos to be equally absurd whenever they think that the unborn child develops (indeed, develops itself, unlike the Polaroid photo) from the moment of fertilization.

The two sides are not quite parallel in this, however: Human beings do develop. To think they are constructed is flatly erroneous.

On Baptism

Found these baptism quotes that I thought were pretty cool...obviously, I'm prone to most things written by Tom (NT) Wright, but even so, I thought these were worth noting. Click the link to see more quotes.

On Baptism | Christianity Today:
"WHETHER BAPTIZED as children or adults, our baptism signifies primarily what God has graciously done for us, and it is upon this that faith rests. It can be argued that the two forms of baptism—infant and adult—together express the full meaning of baptism better than each would alone. In other words, their meanings are complementary rather than mutually exclusive.
Daniel L. Migliore, Faith Seeking Understanding

WHEN PEOPLE submit to Christian baptism, they die with the Messiah and are raised with him into a new life. This means, first and foremost, a change of status. … Once you are baptized, of course, you can try to shirk or shrug off your new responsibilities. You can pretend you don't after all have a new status. … But what you can't do is get unbaptized again.
Tom Wright, Paul for Everyone, Romans: Part One"

What is an Artist Doing?

Over at the Lemming Apocalypse, Tim noted his love of Mitch Hedburg and how Hedburg quotes come to him all the time throughout his days. These experiences with the comedian are actually shaping the way you see and experience the world. Because of Mitch's ability to connect with people through his stand-up, he's helping people like my brother process the world around them, even when he's not listening to him.

I think that's the goal of every artist, whether they're an author, filmmaker, comedian, or painter.

Artists want to connect with you, that is obvious. But they do that by getting you to think about reality in a slightly different way. Story tellers like authors and filmmakers put their characters in situations to get you to connect and think about those themes. Painter and photographers portray images that when we connect these images with others from our experience, hope to encourage us to think differently about our world or see it from a new angle or with emphasis on different colors (i.e., emotions). Comedians, re-craft our experiences in a manner that helps us to see the inherent humor in stuff we do.

All artists want you to continue to think about their art...that's why saying "I was so moved by such-and-such" is a high complement. (the equivalent for a comedian is saying, "I laughed so hard...")

I heard this yesterday: in general, emotional responses will only last about three seconds unless we start consciously thinking about the event that summoned the response.

This means, when we talk about "being moved" we mean that not only was an emotional experience, but that it was an experience that got us to continue to think beyond our initial reaction.

When we think about an artist's work, we are really thinking about their take on reality and either accepting or rejecting it. In either case, you're case, your sense of reality is being changed. You are now either accepting that person's view or pointedly rejecting it.

In the case of Christians who believe that the Bible's portrayal of reality is a more accurate reflection of what the world is actually like than the way we see it, reading the Bible regularly will shape the way you experience reality.

(btw, when I talk about the accuracy of the Bible's portrayal of reality, I am not necessarily talking about its portrayal of history or science. I'm specifically thinking about how the Bible portrays people's relationships with each other and with their creator God.)

Power of a Good Story

You know a movie is good when you can identify with a character in it. That is, while watching it, you find yourself saying, "Hey, I know what that's like."

You know a movie is great when a week later you find yourself thinking, "Man, driving through this Interstate construction zone with high barricades is just like when Luke was on his final approach to destroy the Death Star."

In the first example, you are drawn into the narrative. In the second example, the narrative was so powerful that you use it help you define and process the world you live in.

As people of the Bible, we need to learn the Bible stories so well that we find ourselves bringing the biblical narrative into our own lives. In so doing, it not only adds meaning to our lives since we'll start seeing ourselves as part of the story of the People of God, but it will also help us naturally shape our behavior. For just as when you pretended to be Luke on the Death Star run you, without thinking, started driving a little faster, when you bring the biblical narratives into your daily life, you'll find yourself being the person God wants you to be.

What Should We Teach?

There's this great quote from Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn: “Not everything can be named. Some things draw us beyond words. Art can warm even a chilled and sunless soul to an exalted spiritual experience.”

If Solzhenitsyn is correct, one might be inclined to believe that since somethings cannot be named, that we shouldn't try to name things at all, and simply use art as a means of communicating what we think is real. For, they'd say, who are we to talk about truths, if we can't name that truth with certainty.

Jaroslav Pelikan, a historian from Yale University, shows the problem with a world without laying out what you believe.

Dr. Pelikan: Emerson was a graduate of Harvard Divinity School and was a Unitarian minister, so he was quite prepared to believe that everyone should compose a creed different from the tradition. He said to the Divinity School students at Harvard in 1838, "You must be yourself a newborn bard of the Holy Spirit and sing it out." The trouble with that is, you do it and then you do it a little bit more, and pretty soon you have to teach your children something, and so the best you can do is to teach them what you have, and you do that a generation or two, and all of a sudden, there you have…

Ms. Tippett: …a new creed.

Dr. Pelikan: …a new creed. And the only alternative to tradition is bad tradition.

Endorsement of my New Love

Steven King is one of my favorite authors...and shamefully, I've never read a single one of his novels (I did read his On Writing, though). I love his column in Entertainment Weekly...it's really the only thing that keeps me from being embarrassed to be a EW subscriber.

Anyway, this week's column is on audiobooks, a media that I've devoured since commuting 10 hours/week fifteen months ago. I've always kinda felt guilty that I'm "reading" audiobooks instead of reading "real" books, but thanks to the stamp of approval from Steven King, I no longer feel any shame!!

"Some critics — the always tiresome Harold Bloom among them — claim that listening to audiobooks isn't reading. I couldn't disagree more. In some ways, audio perfects reading. One friend of mine likes to tell the story of how she got so involved in Blair Brown's reading of Sue Miller's Lost in the Forest that she missed her turnpike exit and ended up in Boston. Another swears he never really ''got'' Elmore Leonard until he listened to Arliss Howard reading The Hot Kid and heard the mixed rhythm of the dialogue and narration.

The book purists argue for the sanctity of the page and the perfect communion of reader and writer, with no intermediary. They say that if there's something you don't understand in a book, you can always go back and read it again (these seem to be people so technologically challenged they've never heard of rewind, or can't find the back button on their CD players). Bloom has said that ''Deep reading really demands the inner ear...that part of you which is open to wisdom. You need the text in front of you.'' Here is a man who has clearly never listened to a campfire story."

You the man, Steven!

Cultivation of the Self vs. Cultivation of Community

Below is a transcript of an interview that I love. In it, a New Testament scholar whose work I really appreciate, clarifies a distinction between the books that are in the Christian Bible and those that were not accepted into the cannon.

According to Johnson's reading of the New Testament texts (and I think he's right about this) the Bible focuses more on building up a community than it does on building up individuals. The emphasis on self-less love that Jesus and his followers teach, inherently builds community and, if practiced purely, would prevent any type of spiritual narcissism.

Other non-biblical texts, such as the one popularized by Dan Brown and Elaine Pagels, teach that a person can learn about God by looking inside oneself. This belief is self-centered and ultimately sees humans as spiritually autonomous, since, according to them, we can know God fully through our own God-given capacity without the help from the divine. This notion should raise the eyebrows of anyone who thinks that God is a mystery and cannot be fully understood by our limited human minds.

In the dialog below, Johnson shows how the "cultivation of the self" which masks itself as "spiritual" actually leads to (or stems from) our modern consumer mentality. Great stuff!!

Speaking of Faith: Luke Timothy Johnson: "The Council of Carthage in 397, which is one of our early canonical, or rather conciliar statements concerning the canon, says that only these writings should be read en ecclesia, that is, in the church. And then it lists all of the various texts that now form our Bible. The point of this public reading is that classical Christianity defines itself as a public institution. It is, if you will, a people. It has a sense of communal identity, which can be expressed in creeds, in certain scriptures, in — let's face it — institutions, such as leadership and teachers and so forth.

The critical dividing line there then, in terms of which texts should be read in the assembly, are which ones build the church as a community, as opposed to which ones simply serve as edification for the individual. Many of the Gnostic writings, for example, are highly individualistic in character. They don't even recognize the legitimacy of institution but rather are what we might call today spirituality. That is, they talk about, you know, how to free oneself from the body's trammels and this sort of thing.

Ms. Tippett: Which is possibly why they appeal so much to modern people who are so interested in spirituality.

Mr. Johnson: You got it in one, that spirituality today tends to be defined as sort of a cultivation of the self. And why this — why we are revisiting the second century, which is really what we're doing right now. We're revisiting that…

Ms. Tippett: You mean as a culture?

Mr. Johnson: That's right.

Ms. Tippett: Yes.

Mr. Johnson: …is because, certainly in the United States, the attitudes of individualism and of consumerism has generated a sense of Christianity as a club that we can belong to on our own terms. It is a consumer mentality, you know, the Jesus who fits me, the Jesus who speaks to me. And there's this desire to locate somehow in history a precedent, a legitimation, an antecedent for that particular Jesus. We have lost in America, in particular, the sense of being church. That is, of being a public institutional body that has a creed, that stands for something, that has a specific identity, which requires something of its members, which holds its members to certain kinds of commitments. That's precisely the issue."

A civil case against civil unions

I read this response to the New Jersey Supreme Court's ruling. What struck me was how well argued it was from a secular democratic point of view. Although the writer certainly has strong misgivings about the inherent problems with homosexual marriage, he argues that the long-lasting implication of this ruling will be that a democracy shaped by the people it governs is being thrown out the window.

These excerpts are merely highlights. His full article does a great job at highlighting potential counterpoints and identifying precedents that support his case.

FIRST THINGS: "That New Jersey marriage law should be left to democratic deliberation isn’t an ad hoc decision or a partisan proposal: The very nature of man—human dignity and equality—requires it. The people rightly claim the prerogative to deliberate about how to order their common life not only because sound decisions are thus more likely but because there are no natural superiors or inferiors. There isn’t a ruling class and a ruled class. All citizens stand on equal footing with regards to participation in the shaping of the state’s laws, laws that are binding on all citizens.

But the court in Lewis v. Harris has flouted these principles in a clear instance of judicial aristocracy. Seven unelected and electorally unaccountable justices have not only ignored but flatly rejected the judgments of the people. For the constitution itself leaves questions regarding marriage to the legislature, not the courts. In the absence of any basis that gives it to the court, the judiciary should not override the decisions made by the people through their elected representatives. If same-sex “marriage” is to be legally sanctioned in New Jersey, the people affected by such a decision should make it—by debate and deliberation, research and reasoning, honest engagement with fellow citizens, and then a vote. This is how a democratic polity that respects the freedom...

Same-sex “marriage” advocates should likewise proceed by attempting to persuade the majority of their fellow citizens of the soundness of their view. To ignore their fellow citizens’ judgments and exclude them from the deliberative process by seeking the judicial imposition of same-sex “marriage” is a travesty. But the damage extends well beyond principles of democratic rule. For the substantive issue of whether legally to enshrine marriage as the exclusive and permanent union of sexually complementary spouses (what marriage truly is) or as something else (in this case doing away with sexual complementarity) has profound ramifications. "

Good Cancer News?

A co-worker said he heard about this on the news last night and I had to look it up. Apparently, this San Francisco-based biotech firm has inked an agreement with a South Korean company to develop and

The company's website (see excerpt and link below) details the logic of their treatment, and it sounds facinating. Check out their Products and FAQ pages as well.

I Googled some key words and very little comes up other than new agencies just reposting Jennerex's company-produced press release. Why isn't this bigger news? Are commercialized cancer cures a dime a dozen and the public just doesn't know it? This would seem like big and hopeful news.

Excerpt from their press release:
JX-594 is an oncolytic virus, a new class of cancer therapeutics that utilizes a novel mechanism of action which is expected to be effective against cancers resistant to conventional surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy. JX-594 is a vaccinia virus that has been engineered to infect, multiply in and kill cancer cells while leaving neighboring healthy cells unharmed. In addition to direct killing of cancer cells by viral replication, JX-594 expresses a transgene GM-CSF which stimulates the immune system to recognize and destroy the cancer cells, thereby, attacking tumors through multiple mechanisms of action. The results of a Phase I study for treatment of metastatic melanoma showed good tolerability and evidence of anti-tumor effects. A further Phase I study is currently underway in South Korea for treatment of liver cancer and a Phase II study is planned for the treatment of melanoma.

Oncolytic Viruses: Revolutionary New Cancer Treatment: "JENNEREX designs, creates and develops targeted, armed oncolytic virotherapy products. During the product design process, we initially select the optimal virus and strain based on the biology we want for specific large market tumor targets. We subsequently engineer the virus products to target genetic pathways that are critical in the vast majority of human cancers. This results in enhanced safety and a large 'therapeutic index' (differential cell killing) between cancer tissue and normal tissues in the body. We refer to this method as targeting cancer's Achilles' Heel since these same genetic changes in cancer that support growth of our viruses are also critical to cancer progression itself. The primary mechanism-of-action for our products is virus replication-dependent oncolysis ('onco' cancer, 'lysis' cell destruction). This is a novel and unique cancer-destruction mechanism that does not, in contrast to the majority of cancer treatments, rely on cancer cell 'suicide' (apoptosis); cancer cell destruction is therefore not passive but active."

The Life of Faith

Work, long commute, time with kids, chores, time with spouse, time for self (wait, scratch that, they kids are running all over the place!). You have to manage finances so to pay tons of people for everything for mortgage to ISP to phone. You have been empowered to make tons of moral choices not only in your daily/family life, but also ones that are based on what's going on globally (Walmart, environment, human trafficing, etc.). There are lots of education choices for your kids (more than anyone could have imagined 10 years ago) and you've been empowered to review them and get to decide...Maybe "fast paced" isn't the right word...maybe its that we've been so empowered that now we get to/have to make more choices and stay on top of more things than ever before. How can this type of life be maintained?

If you're looking to get depressed

This morning I started listening to Bill Moyers's latest PBS special: Moyers on America. It's first episode is on corruption in Washington. Man is it bad.

Emails between Ralph Reed and Jack Abramoff are terrible. Reed is proven to be a bigoted jerk...and what's worse, these messages were sent shortly after he stepped down as Christian Coalition head. Reed was promising Abramoff that he send get financial support from his base to help push through this bill that would prevent raising taxes...but what Reed didn't tell the Christians he was soliciting, was that the bill was to prevent Indian gaming casinos from paying increased federal taxes! That is so horrible!

Crushed, a half hour into Moyers' two-hour report and I had to stop listening...listening to the emails sent between Christian and conservative leaders was literally crushing my spirit. The fact that I know that Abramoff's actions were probably typical of many lobbyists, conservative or liberal, did little to make me feel any better.

So, I gave up on Moyers only to get caught up on Frank Deford's podcast (he's the senior writer for Sports Illustrated). He's an incredible writer, insightful and witty, who always offers a unique perspective on the sports world...a real joy to listen to. Well, of course the first podcast I listen to of his is on the rise of college practices among high school when it comes to preferential treatment of sports. Lost innocence...if that doesn't give you warm fuzzies, I don't know what will.

But don't worry, things are bound to look up by day's end. I'm going to see a Scorsese gangster movie this afternoon...and there's no better formula for a feel-good flick than one that's been dubbed a master worthy of comparison to Goodfellas. My guess is that The Departed's closing shot will be of Jack Nicholson give Leonardo DiCaprio a big hug during a Dr. Phil-like therapy session.

Man, I feel better already!

Popularity of American Idol

Hey, I realized the other day that a big reason for American Idol's popularity probably has to do because it is a hip show...not just style and marketing-wize, but it's on the cutting edge of postmodern philosophy.

Postmoderns like information overload...an American Idol has tons of fastpaced cuts, edits, and segments.

Postmoderns like narratives...and Idol gives us personal profiles give you narratives for each contestant. Plus, the audience gets to play an important role in the developing narrative, "if your favorite was in the bottom three, you need to remember that you have to vote!"

Postmoderns claim to like objectivity, but are comfortable with subjectivity...and Idols is supposedly a talent contest, but style, story, and talent are all major factors. Judges' differing opinions prove how subjective everything is.

Finally, in today's world it's all about being true to yourself...and Taylor Hicks won because he was most clearly always true to himself.

Trendiness of Charity

This morning I read this on one of my favorite blogs. I certainly find it exciting and hope that it is a sign of a trend that will define 21st century Christianity and not just be something that is fad-ish like the social peach and justice movement the Christians of the 60s started that resulted in very little long-term change.

Vintage Faith: Will all the interest in social justice become trendy?: "[A southern California pastor] then went on to say how he now knows so many churches and ministries are awakened to the need of being aware and involved in what is happening with the poor, diseased and needy locally and globally. He said he nows feels awkward sharing about his ventures in this, as he now hears about them all the time from so many people. Saddleback and Willow Creek have both jumped in very strongly in being a global voice for AIDS and for the injustice that occurs in certain countries. I rarely ever go to a Christian concert - but the last two I went to both showed videos during their concert of one of the band members in Africa talking about helping with Compassion International and the Invisible Children. It seems every conference or event you go to the leaders now bring attention to some international compassion or social justice project they are supporting. This is all so wonderful and must please Jesus so incredibly much.

But...what an odd and interesting question to be thinking about - to actually be wondering if being involved in social justice and compassion projects sounds 'trendy' ?

What was haunting to me and what I have thought about since the conversation I had with my friend, is what if it is true?

Bono certainly caused us all to really evaluate the 'sleeping giant' (what he called the church several years ago) and how the church was ignoring the poverty, injustice and AIDS crisis. He recently said the church woke up and has now taken notice. But, will it last or will it be trendy?"

God's Wrath in War

Sorry to have all these postings on war...don't mean to be so somber, but wow, this is just crazy stuff that really just draws out the difficulty we face as people trying to do right in this world. This is from that military chaplain who I quote in the previous post.

SOF: The Soul of War: "Let's talk about love your enemies. That's sorely tested in combat. I think, in a very chilling way, I came to the abyss of hate in Fallujah. The body parts of four Americans, charred and hanging off a bridge over the Euphrates, brought me to a point where I could truly sense myself going down a vortex of hate, that in a city people were harbored who were that debased. So at that point I felt that I was crossing a line to say, 'Yes, these people's time on the planet is over, they need to leave. There's no second chance, there's no other form of justice. They have forfeited all rights to humanness.' That was a chilling, chilling moment for me, because I knew I was entering a new territory. And once you cross this line, there's no coming back. When do I become like them? I found myself fueled with a sense of hatred that I could easily have said, you know, 'Hey, I'm God's wrath. We are God's wrath. This needs to be taken care of.' The only thing that pulled me back from that was the power of the Holy Spirit, all the Christian disciplines, and my sense of understanding that, wait a minute, as much as I abhor everything that's done, and as much as I believe what was done was evil and that, if these people don't come out and surrender, there's only one alternative, that is to go in and kill them or apprehend them, I knew I could not cross that line and say, "OK, God's on my side, and here we go."

No, this is chaos, this is human fallenness to the max, and we're using the most brutal tool of human society, the military, to solve a very, very terrible problem. And this isn't God here, this is fallen human beings. So God help me and have mercy on me. I'm a part of something like this, and I prayed that it wouldn't be, but here we are. Save me from becoming a debased, immoral human being. And save my soldiers as well."

Makin' Green while Being Green

I really hope this guy is wrong. I so desparately want businesses, like GE, to be able to find a way to be economically successful and to be economically sucessful while pointedly being environmentally friendly. If big businesses like Ford, BP, and GE say that their green policies of recent years were a mistake, we're really heading for some dark times.

Green CEOs Bad for Business : "BP CEO Lord John Browne also wants to be hailed as an “enlightened” CEO-environmentalist. Under Browne, BP spends more than $100 million annually on its “Beyond Petroleum” campaign – an effort to convince the public that BP is no more an oil company than Greenpeace.

BP not only advocates for global warming regulation – including announcing this week that it will help Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger implement California’s new global warming law – but the company also calls its primary profit-producing product (gasoline) a “necessary evil” in television commercials."

At War with Dr. Phil

Fight Club was probably one of the most influential movies I've ever seen. Unlike superiorly crafted films like the Lord of the Rings or Shawshank, Fight Club completely changed the way I see society...particularly men and their new role as consumers instead of as protectors and providers.

I ran across this quote from Chaplain Major John Morris, who has been an Army Chaplain since 1984.

We're in the "Dr. Phil" culture. Here's an ironic observation on this war in Afghanistan, Iraq…it's our culture today. We like to delve into people's personal lives and pain. That has a peculiar spiritual effect on combat veterans as well, because heroism doesn't seem to be as valued in our culture, but having personal pain and trauma gets you notoriety. That's a real twist that's hard for people to come to grips with.

And the military, you know, heroism's a sacrament. It's a virtue. It's something unbelievable to see somebody exhibit, and we honor it highly, and so what it tends to do is it alienates us even further. We're part of a subculture in America that values things the general culture doesn't seem to be as interested in. And that puzzles us, and so it creates again that sense of alienation, that "Hey, where I was really most vital and alive was when I was with my combat buddies, and we were executing our mission. When I come back here, people want to treat me like a victim." "There must be something wrong with you, because you went to combat."

My Existential Problem

Ok, while eating my Cheetos (graciously provided by corporate giant GE) as part of my lunch today I noticed an interesting gimmick on the package.

The package has the corporate shill, Chester, holding a sign telling customers that the recipe for Cheetos is still missing. Hmmm. That's a cute ad, I thought.

But then it hit me. If they don't have a recipe to make the stuff, what the heck is in the bag marked "Cheetos"? And then my mind went even one step further when I realized that we're living in a society where a marketing group can, apparently, successfully sell a product by putting a notice on the package that the manufacturers have "lost" the recipe.

Now, I know this is something marketed towards kids who probably have been well aware of Chester's search for the amazing recipe for Cheetos for some time now. And I'm guessing everyone but Tim is thinking, "Eric, this is stupid. It's just a stupid cartoon." And, you're right. It is. But I'm certain this product packaging says something about the postmodern culture we're living in...I just can't quite put my finger on it.

Just think about it. Some marketing guy had to go in front of a bunch of big wigs at Frito-Lays and convince that that telling their customers that they lost the recipe would actually result in selling more of the world's most tasty snack treats (they are the best snack food, btw).

This marketer knew that their target market would intuitively know that their claim that the recipe has been lost is a facetious one, and just a fun gimmick. Furthermore, the people would find this storyline of the search for Cheetos so appealing that they would love the brand even more and consume these things that make your fingers orange.

Maybe what's bugging me is the fact that the marketer is confident that consumers will trust Frito-Lay and believe that because the package says Cheetos on the front they are buying the same great-tasting cheese thing they've come accustomed to, while simultaneously dis-believing the same package when it says that the company has lost its ability to make Cheetos.

Fascinating, huh?

Power of Postive Thinking

In an effort to bring Dad back into the newly resurrected Lemming Apocalypse fold (thanks, Tim), I've got to post this awesome story from today's LA Times.
I don't know why, but reading this story brought a sustained smile to my face. I think it's because it's got a bit of everything: sport stars, lawyers, entrepreneurs, lawyers that fail time and again, and millions of dollars going in the right direction for a change.
Sure Ozzie Silna doesn't deserve the money more than the Pacer's Donnie Walsh does, but it's so cool that even though Ozzie's team didn't make it into the NBA, he got his dues...not because he correctly predicted the downfall of the clique that didn't want him to join, but because he had more confidence in NBA and its success than the NBA had in itself.

Ozzie was apparently a visionary, and because he was (and mostly because he had the awesome line "The right to receive such revenues shall continue for as long as the NBA or its successors continue in its existence" in his contract, he's $168M richer.

This is just an excerpt. You gotta read the whole thing. It's a great story.

Roughly once a month, the NBA cuts 31 checks to NBA teams as revenue from its multibillion-dollar national television contract.

There are only 30 NBA franchises, so who gets the extra check?

The money goes to brothers Ozzie and Dan Silna, co-owners of the long-forgotten ABA team, the Spirits of St. Louis.

Thirty years ago, Ozzie Silna, with attorney Donald Schupak, negotiated a deal that cleared the way for the ABA to merge with the NBA. It ranks as one of the best sports deals in modern times, one that has paid the Silnas about $168 million and continues to pay off.

"I would have loved to have an NBA team," said Ozzie Silna, 73, a Malibu resident and environmental activist. "But if I look at it retrospectively over what I would have gotten, versus what I've received now, then I'm a happy camper."

Part of the Silnas' deal called for them to receive one-seventh of the annual TV revenue from each of the four ABA teams entering the NBA. The deal turned out to be so lucrative that several NBA teams have tried to break it, without success...

In 1976 the ABA reached a merger deal with the NBA. The NBA agreed to take four of the six teams from the dismantling ABA. The Spirits and the Kentucky Colonels were not invited to join the league. However, the ABA owners needed to reach unanimous approval for the merger to take place.
John Y. Brown, owner of the Kentucky Colonels, quickly accepted a $3.3-million buyout as compensation. That deal was also offered to the Silnas.
But Ozzie Silna kept haggling for more, and he finally reached a deal in a swank Massachusetts hotel room. The Silnas would get $3 million, plus a share of the TV revenue from the four teams entering the NBA. "When we accepted the arrangement, the big thing was that the NBA had television" and the ABA didn't, said Silna. "But still, the TV revenue was minuscule compared with baseball and the NFL."
Initially, the contract netted the Silnas about $300,000 a year as the NBA struggled with spotty attendance and weak TV ratings until the '80s, when Magic Johnson, Larry Bird and Michael Jordan catapulted the league to a higher profile.
As the NBA's popularity rose, so did the league's TV contract and the Silnas' cut. For the NBA's last contract, they averaged $15 million a year.
"The process never even entered our minds of how high it would get," Ozzie Silna said. "We just wanted a piece of the action."

Cruisin' Right Along

Apparently, in 2005 "the rate of injuries per mile traveled was lower than at any time since the Interstate Highway System was built 50 years ago. The fatality rate was the second lowest ever, just a tick higher than in 2004."

I had heard statistics like this before, but with ten years of data now, I guess this is getting pretty conclusive.

From OpinionJournal

This may seem non-controversial now, but at the time [in 1995 when they passed the federal law ending the mandated 55MPH national speed limit] the debate was shrill and filled with predictions of doom. Ralph Nader claimed that "history will never forgive Congress for this assault on the sanctity of human life." Judith Stone, president of the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, predicted to Katie Couric on NBC's "Today Show" that there would be "6,400 added highway fatalities a year and millions of more injuries." Federico Pena, the Clinton Administration's Secretary of Transportation, declared: "Allowing speed limits to rise above 55 simply means that more Americans will die and be injured on our highways."

We now have 10 years of evidence proving that the only "assault" was on the sanctity of the truth. The nearby table shows that the death, injury and crash rates have fallen sharply since 1995. Per mile traveled, there were about 5,000 fewer deaths and almost one million fewer injuries in 2005 than in the mid-1990s. This is all the more remarkable given that a dozen years ago Americans lacked today's distraction of driving while also talking on their cell phones.

Of the 31 states that have raised their speed limits to more than 70 mph, 29 saw a decline in the death and injury rate and only two--the Dakotas--have seen fatalities increase.

Environmentalism and the Religious Right

I stumbled across an interview on public radio with Richard Cizik, the spokesperson for the National Association of Evangelicals. I had heard about the leadership of the Christian Conservative movement branching it's social concerns from abortion and marriage issues to also include fighting AIDS, third world debt relief, and environmental issues, but I hadn't looked into it very much. I must say, after listening to this guy and reading the stuff on the NAE's website, I'm very impressed. They're really working to make this world a better place for all people, and they're doing it by crossing boundaries and forging unusual alliances while maintaining an exclusively Christian viewpoint. Check out these things they've been working on Stopping sex trafficking (partnered with a coalition of feminists) Preventing and aiding AIDS/HIV victims in Africa (partnered with gay rights groups) Enacting prison abuse reform (partnered with American Civil Liberties Union) Stopping emission of green house gases (partnered with environmentalist groups) This is really exciting stuff, because not only is this group refusing to be held hostage to the GOP (or any party), it seems to me that they're keeping the focus on true religion, i.e., care for the poorest among us (James 1:27).

According to Cizik, all morality starts with people honoring the sanctity of life...and everything else follows from that. So abortion is still seen as probably the biggest moral problem of our time...but these other issues are also seen as very important and must be addressed by those who call themselves followers of Christ. If we don't, the poor will continue to suffer the consequences of our actions (or inaction). And especially on environmental issues, where if we don't do something now to stop of rampant world-wide consumerism, the world of our children and grandchildren may be torn apart by war as people fight for resources to survive.

Check out the podcast of the interview. It's really good. And here's a link to Bono's keynote address at this year's National Prayer Breakfast...it's pretty inspiring.