Returning to the Pacific Northwest brings a daily joy during the spring and summer months. While productively keeping my household in order, I listen to my favorite sports team, the Seattle Mariners Baseball Club (Ichiro led off the game with a ground-rule double and came around to score as I write).
After 30 minutes of the broadcast, a commercial decries the proposed carbonated beverage tax in Washington State, three times during that span. The merits of the tax are debatable. Seth Godin makes an interesting argument about these types of beverage taxes. What I appreciate about Godin is his creative approach to looking at issues, ideas and concepts. I have to think about the merits of the tax, but the commercial adds nothing to the debate.
I realize the goal of almost any political ad is to create an emotional response. The ad depicts a couple going over their budget. Their budget is busted by taxes on carbonated beverages (Even seltzer water! Even club soda!). I find it amusing that the ad attempts to establish that carbonated beverages are an essential grocery item. Regardless of carbonated beverages value to a diet if carbonated beverages are busting your budget, then you don't know how to live with a budget.
The website (linked above) goes even further, by making carbonated beverage bottlers the victim, that the tax will "depress (nice word choice, eh?)" sales. Carbonated beverage bottlers and companies are far from the ranks of victims.
I am not against the right of free speech for the ad, and I'm not making a statement about the merits of taxes. I am such a victim that the joy of listening to the Mariners game by a terrible ad has been compromised. Woe is me.
Political advertisements with poor emotional baits that do not benefit public discourse on state government revenue? Put it on the Lame List!
I miss Almost Live.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Friday, April 09, 2010
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
A New Old Citizenship
When I attended McKnight Middle School in Renton back in the early 1980's, my report card gave other grades besides performance. One of those other grades was "citizenship." I wasn't exactly sure what that meant and how one teacher who saw me for a few hours per week (and worked hard to keep me occupied and learning) could observe my life as a citizen, let alone give me a grade. I think even the most self-aware of my classmates could attach this grade to behavior rather than performance. After leaving McKnight, I never saw this grade for citizenship again.
I once had very high and positive expectations for President Obama--though I wouldn't go so far as to call it "hope." Though I've always had interest and passion about politics, I never held an illusion that politics and politicians were a place to invest the energy of hope. For me, party politics has sunk to a new low. I've haven't taken well to the two-party system in the United States since my college days, and the actions of Democrats and Republicans in my adult life have not inspired me to draw any closer to political life outside of being an educated voter. It's hard to advocate for misguided or power hungry leadership.
However, I am still a citizen of the State of Washington and the United States. I am not required to support a political party to be a citizen. To be a good citizen, I can participate in public life, independent of decisions of Republicans and Democrats--to make lives better for my family and other people. Ideology does not come in to play. Democrats or Republicans will not prevent me from volunteering at my daughter's school. I volunteered at my daughter's elementary school last Friday for the first time, and I had an awakening to the meaning of citizenship. I realized that my energy toward Republicans and Democrats was misplaced for all of these years. My energy will be placed toward being a good citizen.
More on this topic later--but today I had to make a proclamation of a personal investment in a new old citizenship.
I once had very high and positive expectations for President Obama--though I wouldn't go so far as to call it "hope." Though I've always had interest and passion about politics, I never held an illusion that politics and politicians were a place to invest the energy of hope. For me, party politics has sunk to a new low. I've haven't taken well to the two-party system in the United States since my college days, and the actions of Democrats and Republicans in my adult life have not inspired me to draw any closer to political life outside of being an educated voter. It's hard to advocate for misguided or power hungry leadership.
However, I am still a citizen of the State of Washington and the United States. I am not required to support a political party to be a citizen. To be a good citizen, I can participate in public life, independent of decisions of Republicans and Democrats--to make lives better for my family and other people. Ideology does not come in to play. Democrats or Republicans will not prevent me from volunteering at my daughter's school. I volunteered at my daughter's elementary school last Friday for the first time, and I had an awakening to the meaning of citizenship. I realized that my energy toward Republicans and Democrats was misplaced for all of these years. My energy will be placed toward being a good citizen.
More on this topic later--but today I had to make a proclamation of a personal investment in a new old citizenship.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Politics (entry #6 in the Madhouse Gazette South Dakota Lexicon)
South Dakota has a strange love affair with U.S. Senator John Thune (at least as seen by the rest of world). Many people can't understand why South Dakota would vote out Tom Daschle, someone with seniority, clout, influence and good leadership (okay, he had a hard time doing his taxes, but what politician doesn't), and vote in John Thune.
For any South Dakotan, the political move from Daschle to Thune makes perfect sense. The folks of the Northern Great Plains strongly believe in their values and way of life, yet they struggle with their image when their perspectives move to a national stage. This conundrum of belief and identity are residual effects of the Scandinavian concept of Jante Law. Jante Law is an interesting variable considering Daschle's political fall: I remember that South Dakota public discourse and conventional wisdom said that Daschle was getting "too big for his britches." He needed to be voted out. It didn't matter that Daschle was Senate Majority Leader, accomplished much for South Dakota through his position, and was a marginal presidential candidate--Daschle had to be taken down a peg or two. It didn't help matters that he was a Democrat, either.
The love being articulated for Thune sounds a little like Brokeback Mountain, with which people in the state tried to distance themselves through vitriol and condemnation. I had to laugh when I read the commentary on Thune's rising prominence in the aforementioned link. While I lived in South Dakota, I found the politics maddening. Now that I'm on the outside looking in, South Dakota politics are interesting.
Thanks to Allison Kilkenny's recent blog post referencing Thune for the inspiration to reflect upon my life with South Dakota politics.
For any South Dakotan, the political move from Daschle to Thune makes perfect sense. The folks of the Northern Great Plains strongly believe in their values and way of life, yet they struggle with their image when their perspectives move to a national stage. This conundrum of belief and identity are residual effects of the Scandinavian concept of Jante Law. Jante Law is an interesting variable considering Daschle's political fall: I remember that South Dakota public discourse and conventional wisdom said that Daschle was getting "too big for his britches." He needed to be voted out. It didn't matter that Daschle was Senate Majority Leader, accomplished much for South Dakota through his position, and was a marginal presidential candidate--Daschle had to be taken down a peg or two. It didn't help matters that he was a Democrat, either.
The love being articulated for Thune sounds a little like Brokeback Mountain, with which people in the state tried to distance themselves through vitriol and condemnation. I had to laugh when I read the commentary on Thune's rising prominence in the aforementioned link. While I lived in South Dakota, I found the politics maddening. Now that I'm on the outside looking in, South Dakota politics are interesting.
Thanks to Allison Kilkenny's recent blog post referencing Thune for the inspiration to reflect upon my life with South Dakota politics.
Monday, October 05, 2009
Forget Limbaugh and Olbermann, the comedians are a lot closer to reality
The United States is sitting at a high level of anxiety if political commentary screamers have the most power. They're only accountable to their own power bases, and not to the general public. The louder they scream, the higher ratings they get. What greater good is served in watching/reading/listening to already agreed upon commentary?
I enjoyed Saturday Night Live's take on Obama's presidency, even if PolitiFact gives Obama a little slack on some of Obama's promises lampooned on SNL. What I like about PolitiFact is that it steers clear of ideological based critique and hold Obama accountable for what he said he was going to do--which is much more interesting and at least more objective than ideological screaming heads like Olbermann, Beck and their ilk.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Beck may be "arguing with idiots," but doesn't exactly encourage intelligence
I don't waste a lot of time reading or watching Glenn Beck. I don't understand why a public event protected by free speech needs to be stopped.
Thousands will gather today in Seattle and Mount Vernon to hear and meet a man who is puzzling in his vitriol at best and maniacally foolish at his worst. I don't understand the petition to cancel his appearance in Mount Vernon. People are free to protest his appearance, but seeking cancellation? I suppose Beck is broadly adept at attracting foolishness--which means I should never write about him again.
Thousands will gather today in Seattle and Mount Vernon to hear and meet a man who is puzzling in his vitriol at best and maniacally foolish at his worst. I don't understand the petition to cancel his appearance in Mount Vernon. People are free to protest his appearance, but seeking cancellation? I suppose Beck is broadly adept at attracting foolishness--which means I should never write about him again.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Washington Huskies vs. USC Trojans, 9/19/09 & hope
Listening to an abundance of local sport pundits cannot be good for mental health, but sometimes taking in sports hope has an addictive quality. I think sports hope trumps political hope or even spiritual hope in the euphoric rush factor (at least in this life)--though I'm not sure why. I know the other hopes have more meaning, but sports hope is more fun.
A tangible belief is brewing in Western Washington that the UW Husky football team can beat the University of Southern California Trojans. Steve Sarkisian and his staff have worked, planned and produced a team where the effort, execution, intelligence and passion inspire hope. As a fan produced from a family tree of a UW alumni--that is what a Husky supporter expects and takes pride. I am attending my first live game at UW in over 20 years with family and friends--I HOPE I will see more of what I have seen in the first two weeks. I don't know if all of this sports hope will be accompanied by a win for the Huskies, but hope hasn't been completely eclipsed by iron-clad expectation for a football dynasty.
The fun for all college football fans should be magnified in the UW-USC game tomorrow.
A tangible belief is brewing in Western Washington that the UW Husky football team can beat the University of Southern California Trojans. Steve Sarkisian and his staff have worked, planned and produced a team where the effort, execution, intelligence and passion inspire hope. As a fan produced from a family tree of a UW alumni--that is what a Husky supporter expects and takes pride. I am attending my first live game at UW in over 20 years with family and friends--I HOPE I will see more of what I have seen in the first two weeks. I don't know if all of this sports hope will be accompanied by a win for the Huskies, but hope hasn't been completely eclipsed by iron-clad expectation for a football dynasty.
The fun for all college football fans should be magnified in the UW-USC game tomorrow.
Thursday, September 03, 2009
What is "white culture"?
Once before I have referenced the oddity that is Glenn Beck--not nearly as many times as Keith Olbermann--but I don't need to beat a dead horse in order to get people to watch my show. Olbermann beats up on Beck to help his ratings. Beck does the same kind of thing, but Beck sometimes adds tears.
Beck is on his way back to the Northwest, returning to a town of his youth. Beck was not a controversial figure in South Dakota because many people share his perspectives on the world. But in the Northwest, Beck will often be vilified, and some folks in Mount Vernon, Washington are angry about a Glenn Beck Day in Mount Vernon. One of his more recent controversies involves calling Barack Obama a racist and hold a desire to dismantle "white culture."
Regardless of whether someone believes Obama to be racist, or whether his leadership is detrimental to the country, my question is what is "white culture?" An who is white? Are Italians considered white? How about Greeks? Does one have to be completely white, like a native, but non-aboriginal Norwegian? If all of these aforementioned cultures are grouped as white, then what monolithic "white culture" do you have? If there is a white culture, I'm not sure how I participate or influence white culture. Please Mr. Beck, help me understand.
One of my favorite blogs is "Stuff White People Like." The Canadian author Christian Lander is not necessarily proclaiming a white culture per se, but identifies proclivities that are hard to deny. Race, culture and skin color aren't interchangeable words, and to call Obama a racist attempting to dismantle white culture is a poor choice of concepts to criticize Obama's body of work.
But hey, Beck gets the ratings.
Beck is on his way back to the Northwest, returning to a town of his youth. Beck was not a controversial figure in South Dakota because many people share his perspectives on the world. But in the Northwest, Beck will often be vilified, and some folks in Mount Vernon, Washington are angry about a Glenn Beck Day in Mount Vernon. One of his more recent controversies involves calling Barack Obama a racist and hold a desire to dismantle "white culture."
Regardless of whether someone believes Obama to be racist, or whether his leadership is detrimental to the country, my question is what is "white culture?" An who is white? Are Italians considered white? How about Greeks? Does one have to be completely white, like a native, but non-aboriginal Norwegian? If all of these aforementioned cultures are grouped as white, then what monolithic "white culture" do you have? If there is a white culture, I'm not sure how I participate or influence white culture. Please Mr. Beck, help me understand.
One of my favorite blogs is "Stuff White People Like." The Canadian author Christian Lander is not necessarily proclaiming a white culture per se, but identifies proclivities that are hard to deny. Race, culture and skin color aren't interchangeable words, and to call Obama a racist attempting to dismantle white culture is a poor choice of concepts to criticize Obama's body of work.
But hey, Beck gets the ratings.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Expanded mass transit in Seattle--a long time coming
Pacific Northwesterners are an interesting lot. Many are passionate about the environment and social justice, yet they have this independent, pioneering and entrepreneurial streak that holds enough suspicion about taxes to keep things in check.
Seattle is probably one of the last major cities to implement some sort of rail component to their mass transit system. My Granddad was against it, as were many Seattle area residents. I think some of them were scared off by the Seattle Center Monorail--a space age transport idea back in the 1960's that became a bit of a money pit and had low ridership.
After living in Washington D.C. and Copenhagen, and taking other rail systems as a tourist (London, Oslo, Munich, Stockholm, Edmonton, Chicago) I came to love mass transit. I appreciate minimizing parking and traffic headaches, and giving me an opportunity to read and think before I arrived to work. Is there a little less freedom on the rail? Sure, but for me the pros outweigh the cons. After many crazy drives into downtown Seattle in my lifetime, I was giddy with excitement about getting on the Central Link, dropping off the car and taking my girls and visitors on the rail ride into Seattle. My girls loved the trip and what they saw--they weren't the only ones excited--a slew of children shouted with glee over every little pass: "Wow! The Beacon Hill tunnel!" I didn't think that part was so exciting, but I was happy for them.
We got off the train, walked calmly into a restaurant, and enjoyed a nice lunch with minimal stress to begin our day in Seattle. Is Central Link a perfect set up? No--I think there should be more parking available near stops--I also miss some of the vendors near the stops as in other systems. In the end, I was pleased, and I'm looking forward to my next ride on the rail--Seattle opportunities feel that much closer and reasonable.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Preaching for August 23, 2009
Joshua 24:1-2a, 14-18
Psalm 34:15-22
Ephesians 6:10-20
John 6:56-69
Once again, I am skipping over the bread imagery in John 6. Since a significant majority of Lutheran pastors I know preach on the Gospel lesson somewhere near 90 percent of the time or more, I'm guessing that any congregation where I preach to give a pastor a break will have already heard about Jesus and bread imagery ad nauseum.
I'm not enamored with the image of the "whole armor of God" in Ephesians, either. I understand the good connections with this imagery, like preparation and struggle for a community in the Christian life. However, I think this passage was almost ruined for me as it has been used in connection with a reason for military build up. I once associated this quote with Ronald Reagan, but I could not find a quote where he directly used this passage. It says something about how fleeting memory can be and that propeganda is subversive. Though the text has its merits, this text represents damaged goods, and I don't think I can preach it faithfully.
As a Lutheran Christian, I have a mixed relationship with this text from Joshua. The text is used as a biblical foundation for a book on marriage by Walt Wangerin. My dear wife and I read this in preparation for our marriage. Though we don't explicitly reference the Wangerin book as part of strengthening our marriage today, the book has some foundational qualities about how the depths of human existence and our relationship with God through that relationship. Our lives are formed by Christian vocation. Almost every decision we make has a relationship to Christian vocation. Therefore, I make a connection between this text and the gift of marriage. Though Joshua is not specifically speaking about marriage in this text, the practical application between God and relationships doesn't appear to be an unfaithful one. The uneasiness with the text comes from weighting the interpretation more toward the choice of Joshua than the action of God. Anyone familiar with Lutheran theology and life knows that generally speaking are uneasy with any proclamation glorifying any choice by humanity--corporate or individual, because human beings are flawed creatures, therefore human choices are fraught with peril. This doesn't mean I feel the need to beat myself down or my fellow human beings, nor do I have to live a jaded life. I am skeptical, however, about trumpeting human choice. The classic text referenced in this idea is from Jesus in John 15: "You did not choose me, but I chose you."
What is a Christian or one considering the Christian life to make of choice? Choice is a buzz word and concept in our day to day life. Think of all the topics upon which choice is debated. Abortion (pro-choice), health care (choice of coverage), war (we have a volunteer armed forces in the United States) reveal that the concept of choice is the fulcrum of many topics of public discourse. The United States economy thrives on the availability of choice. For those who want to expand choices or restrict choices--someone always ends up choosing. Where will the line be drawn for choice? Libertarians seem to thrive in this discussions. Conservatives tend to want to restrict moral choices for the sake of societal morality, liberals tend to want to restrict economic choices for the sake of societal justice. Any restrictions on choice from either end of the continuum, according to Libertarians lead to societal problems as well.
Humans really don't know what to do with choice. I remember reflecting on the philosophy of Neil Peart and his 1980 song, "Freewill". I loved the line "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." I didn't ponder this song so much theologically as a teenager--though I recognized it had theological ramifications, my epiphany was that my choices had consequences, and that not choosing was a choice in itself. I still ponder that idea today, and that pondering is made more cool by one of my favorite bass solos by Geddy Lee (or of any bass player) of all time.
After returning from living in Denmark for a year, I remember the shock over returning to an American retail establishment and being overwhelmed by the amount of choice. I missed having some choices while living there, but I also saw that choice can be crippling. Is choice the source of goodness in the world? I wasn't so sure.
With one more year of seminary and a new congregational ministry call, I was able to place some deeper theological context on my reflections on choice. In my first congregation in Wisconsin I realized my shallowness of knowledge in Lutheran theology by grappling with the notion of choice to the point of foolishly saying that humans really had no choice at all--an idea I quickly retracted when I realized the ramifications of that line of thinking. But I recognized that choice is tenuous--in terms of human relationship with God, Luther called this "the bondage of the will." Some people in my congregation recognized my theological grappling, and took up with me the discussion about free will and whether it exists on any level. I had one intelligent person write me a paper on his argument against Luther's "Bondage of the Will." I deeply admired the fact he respected me enough to gather his thoughts, share them with me in a coherent fashion, and valued his faith enough that this was a good investment of his time and energy.
At best I can say that choice is tenuous, and that Joshua is really stating that we need to look at the work of God in the biblical witness and our own lives and compare that work with the other paths and gods. Choice may be tenuous--but God is faithful.
Is this Gospel? If so, will it preach? Usually I know this by this point of the sermon preparation, but at this point, I am under some pressure, I have the ubiquitous sermon title to create. Even if I choose not to choose a sermon title, I still have made a choice.
Psalm 34:15-22
Ephesians 6:10-20
John 6:56-69
Once again, I am skipping over the bread imagery in John 6. Since a significant majority of Lutheran pastors I know preach on the Gospel lesson somewhere near 90 percent of the time or more, I'm guessing that any congregation where I preach to give a pastor a break will have already heard about Jesus and bread imagery ad nauseum.
I'm not enamored with the image of the "whole armor of God" in Ephesians, either. I understand the good connections with this imagery, like preparation and struggle for a community in the Christian life. However, I think this passage was almost ruined for me as it has been used in connection with a reason for military build up. I once associated this quote with Ronald Reagan, but I could not find a quote where he directly used this passage. It says something about how fleeting memory can be and that propeganda is subversive. Though the text has its merits, this text represents damaged goods, and I don't think I can preach it faithfully.
As a Lutheran Christian, I have a mixed relationship with this text from Joshua. The text is used as a biblical foundation for a book on marriage by Walt Wangerin. My dear wife and I read this in preparation for our marriage. Though we don't explicitly reference the Wangerin book as part of strengthening our marriage today, the book has some foundational qualities about how the depths of human existence and our relationship with God through that relationship. Our lives are formed by Christian vocation. Almost every decision we make has a relationship to Christian vocation. Therefore, I make a connection between this text and the gift of marriage. Though Joshua is not specifically speaking about marriage in this text, the practical application between God and relationships doesn't appear to be an unfaithful one. The uneasiness with the text comes from weighting the interpretation more toward the choice of Joshua than the action of God. Anyone familiar with Lutheran theology and life knows that generally speaking are uneasy with any proclamation glorifying any choice by humanity--corporate or individual, because human beings are flawed creatures, therefore human choices are fraught with peril. This doesn't mean I feel the need to beat myself down or my fellow human beings, nor do I have to live a jaded life. I am skeptical, however, about trumpeting human choice. The classic text referenced in this idea is from Jesus in John 15: "You did not choose me, but I chose you."
What is a Christian or one considering the Christian life to make of choice? Choice is a buzz word and concept in our day to day life. Think of all the topics upon which choice is debated. Abortion (pro-choice), health care (choice of coverage), war (we have a volunteer armed forces in the United States) reveal that the concept of choice is the fulcrum of many topics of public discourse. The United States economy thrives on the availability of choice. For those who want to expand choices or restrict choices--someone always ends up choosing. Where will the line be drawn for choice? Libertarians seem to thrive in this discussions. Conservatives tend to want to restrict moral choices for the sake of societal morality, liberals tend to want to restrict economic choices for the sake of societal justice. Any restrictions on choice from either end of the continuum, according to Libertarians lead to societal problems as well.
Humans really don't know what to do with choice. I remember reflecting on the philosophy of Neil Peart and his 1980 song, "Freewill". I loved the line "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." I didn't ponder this song so much theologically as a teenager--though I recognized it had theological ramifications, my epiphany was that my choices had consequences, and that not choosing was a choice in itself. I still ponder that idea today, and that pondering is made more cool by one of my favorite bass solos by Geddy Lee (or of any bass player) of all time.
After returning from living in Denmark for a year, I remember the shock over returning to an American retail establishment and being overwhelmed by the amount of choice. I missed having some choices while living there, but I also saw that choice can be crippling. Is choice the source of goodness in the world? I wasn't so sure.
With one more year of seminary and a new congregational ministry call, I was able to place some deeper theological context on my reflections on choice. In my first congregation in Wisconsin I realized my shallowness of knowledge in Lutheran theology by grappling with the notion of choice to the point of foolishly saying that humans really had no choice at all--an idea I quickly retracted when I realized the ramifications of that line of thinking. But I recognized that choice is tenuous--in terms of human relationship with God, Luther called this "the bondage of the will." Some people in my congregation recognized my theological grappling, and took up with me the discussion about free will and whether it exists on any level. I had one intelligent person write me a paper on his argument against Luther's "Bondage of the Will." I deeply admired the fact he respected me enough to gather his thoughts, share them with me in a coherent fashion, and valued his faith enough that this was a good investment of his time and energy.
At best I can say that choice is tenuous, and that Joshua is really stating that we need to look at the work of God in the biblical witness and our own lives and compare that work with the other paths and gods. Choice may be tenuous--but God is faithful.
Is this Gospel? If so, will it preach? Usually I know this by this point of the sermon preparation, but at this point, I am under some pressure, I have the ubiquitous sermon title to create. Even if I choose not to choose a sermon title, I still have made a choice.
Friday, August 07, 2009
First vote in Washington State in nearly 20 years
Today I completed not only my first election ballot in Washington in nearly 20 years, this was my first vote by mail. I am pleased with this process for many reasons.
1. King County, Washington provides non-partisan voter pamphlet for all registered candidates for each elected position. In the guides I can find contact information, links to more information about candidates, and candidate statements. I was able to easily find more information about candidates and local issues than I ever have as a voter.
2. The voting by mail process along with the voters' pamphlets gave me ample opportunity to research candidates and issues and that gave me adequate information to make an informed vote.
3. Web presence matters--I noticed if candidates did not use one of the least expensive ways to connect with a diverse group of voters. I voted for candidates I may not have in the past because I was able to read about their approach to issues facing King County.
Not being a native of South Dakota, I found it difficult to attain information regarding local issues and candidates and easily compare and contrast them during local elections. I participated in almost every election while I lived there, but I was not as informed as I could have been. I hope South Dakota moves toward ballots by mail and providing some sort of clearing house of links. Any voter can prepare to fill out their ballots using traditional methods if they are motivated to do so, but I think that the democratic process was served better using mail ballots and providing easier access to candidate information. I'm going to research mail ballots in South Dakota anecdotally, I'm curious about individual responses to the concept of ballots by mail.
1. King County, Washington provides non-partisan voter pamphlet for all registered candidates for each elected position. In the guides I can find contact information, links to more information about candidates, and candidate statements. I was able to easily find more information about candidates and local issues than I ever have as a voter.
2. The voting by mail process along with the voters' pamphlets gave me ample opportunity to research candidates and issues and that gave me adequate information to make an informed vote.
3. Web presence matters--I noticed if candidates did not use one of the least expensive ways to connect with a diverse group of voters. I voted for candidates I may not have in the past because I was able to read about their approach to issues facing King County.
Not being a native of South Dakota, I found it difficult to attain information regarding local issues and candidates and easily compare and contrast them during local elections. I participated in almost every election while I lived there, but I was not as informed as I could have been. I hope South Dakota moves toward ballots by mail and providing some sort of clearing house of links. Any voter can prepare to fill out their ballots using traditional methods if they are motivated to do so, but I think that the democratic process was served better using mail ballots and providing easier access to candidate information. I'm going to research mail ballots in South Dakota anecdotally, I'm curious about individual responses to the concept of ballots by mail.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Still goobers
I was wondering if broadcast news talking heads were still goobers. I took a break from my recent infatuation with HGTV and TLC to find out.
They are still goobers.
I wonder if this bank will be getting a bailout
I worry about financial services companies, especially with the ORCA card making some transactions obsolete. Another fine financial institution in the toilet. Sigh.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Preaching for July 26th, 2009
2 Samuel 11:1-15
Psalm 14
Ephesians 3:14-21
John 6:1-21
I preach on the Gospel of John with higher levels of trepidation than other texts. I remember the challenge of the Greek when I used that tool with any regularity. I also find this account presents some of the most challenging interpretive questions. This particular section in the Revised Common Lectionary also hits 5 straight weeks of John 6 and themes related to bread. I have come across several (poor) preacher jokes about how they avoid these texts through the use of vacation and other lectionary texts.
I'm leaning toward preaching on the Ephesians text because I resonate with the offering of encouragement to the people of God, whom in my experience are often feeling either insufficient as a child of God, discouraged, isolated, or a combination thereof. After reading Arland Hultrgren's piece from workingpreacher.org, I'm focusing on the riches of faith--which is the relationships and faith stories of others in the community of faith.
Some in the coming weeks will argue that the riches of faith come only from the articulation sound and pure doctrine. This doctrinal argument will inevitably arise when ELCA Lutherans from all over the country will get together in Minneapolis in less than a month to passionately debate the role of LGBT people in the live of the Church (though it won't be the only topic, this topic will receive the most coverage). Some will say that these faith stories are irrelevant or minimized because they do not come from a foundation of sound doctrine. I may read about these debates because sometimes I like to watch a good train wreck. I believe the ELCA may experience a significant split after the August gathering. At the very least there will be hemming and hawing. Whatever the ELCA discerns what to do with itself, I will continue to harvest the riches of faith stories in Christ from God's people, for it is texts like this in Ephesians that call me to what I am supposed to do. If a church isn't willing to have me as a preacher of the Gospel because of a certain trajectory of belief I hold, so be it.
These reflections may not all find their way into my sermon on Sunday--I have to have an intentional economy of words. The heat will preclude me from a long period of attention from the congregation on Sunday--and they do not have air conditioning. Ugh.
Psalm 14
Ephesians 3:14-21
John 6:1-21
I preach on the Gospel of John with higher levels of trepidation than other texts. I remember the challenge of the Greek when I used that tool with any regularity. I also find this account presents some of the most challenging interpretive questions. This particular section in the Revised Common Lectionary also hits 5 straight weeks of John 6 and themes related to bread. I have come across several (poor) preacher jokes about how they avoid these texts through the use of vacation and other lectionary texts.
I'm leaning toward preaching on the Ephesians text because I resonate with the offering of encouragement to the people of God, whom in my experience are often feeling either insufficient as a child of God, discouraged, isolated, or a combination thereof. After reading Arland Hultrgren's piece from workingpreacher.org, I'm focusing on the riches of faith--which is the relationships and faith stories of others in the community of faith.
Some in the coming weeks will argue that the riches of faith come only from the articulation sound and pure doctrine. This doctrinal argument will inevitably arise when ELCA Lutherans from all over the country will get together in Minneapolis in less than a month to passionately debate the role of LGBT people in the live of the Church (though it won't be the only topic, this topic will receive the most coverage). Some will say that these faith stories are irrelevant or minimized because they do not come from a foundation of sound doctrine. I may read about these debates because sometimes I like to watch a good train wreck. I believe the ELCA may experience a significant split after the August gathering. At the very least there will be hemming and hawing. Whatever the ELCA discerns what to do with itself, I will continue to harvest the riches of faith stories in Christ from God's people, for it is texts like this in Ephesians that call me to what I am supposed to do. If a church isn't willing to have me as a preacher of the Gospel because of a certain trajectory of belief I hold, so be it.
These reflections may not all find their way into my sermon on Sunday--I have to have an intentional economy of words. The heat will preclude me from a long period of attention from the congregation on Sunday--and they do not have air conditioning. Ugh.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Does place really make a difference for the Church (Part 2 of an ongoing series)?
The Seattle Times is not a pillar of religion coverage, let alone journalism pertaining to Christian issues. However, one of today's lead stories speaks to both national religious issues and those particular to the Pacific Northwest. Conservative Evangelicals are indeed lacking strong national leadership, yet have strong local and regional presence in different areas of the country. What does that mean for the open religious market in the Northwest? This article begins to take on the discussion about what appears to be a religious vortex in the Pacific Northwest--that is, no one type of religious presence will dominate that PNW religious landscape at least for the next decade.
However, I agree with James Wellman's assessment that Conservative Evangelicals will continue to make gains in religious participation in the PNW, but it remains to be seen whether Conservative Evangelicals will gain influence in the PNW. While a prominent wave of Evangelical influence has affected national public discourse in recent memory, nothing seems to keep a lasting hold. The comment section on the Times article is brisk and speaks to a certain level of religious illiteracy, though religiosity does illicit emotional responses.
Reading the responses to the Times article also remind me of Bill Maher's implicit call to atheists (in Religulous) to engage in public religious discourse. Merely speaking against religion is not an ethical response. Maher believes the world hangs in the balance with religion part of the fulcrum with dynamite sitting below it. Religious literacy is important for religious discourse for people to have a positive influence in the world. I'm not trying to create a Unitarian mass conversion, but the level of religious ignorance is dangerous (and I could do better myself with that literacy). To merely attempt to debunk religion is publicly irresponsible.
However, I agree with James Wellman's assessment that Conservative Evangelicals will continue to make gains in religious participation in the PNW, but it remains to be seen whether Conservative Evangelicals will gain influence in the PNW. While a prominent wave of Evangelical influence has affected national public discourse in recent memory, nothing seems to keep a lasting hold. The comment section on the Times article is brisk and speaks to a certain level of religious illiteracy, though religiosity does illicit emotional responses.
Reading the responses to the Times article also remind me of Bill Maher's implicit call to atheists (in Religulous) to engage in public religious discourse. Merely speaking against religion is not an ethical response. Maher believes the world hangs in the balance with religion part of the fulcrum with dynamite sitting below it. Religious literacy is important for religious discourse for people to have a positive influence in the world. I'm not trying to create a Unitarian mass conversion, but the level of religious ignorance is dangerous (and I could do better myself with that literacy). To merely attempt to debunk religion is publicly irresponsible.
Thursday, July 09, 2009
The Media Roster (July 9, 2009 edition)
Though I feel like Luddite on certain tech trends, and I am nowhere near being a true trend setter; I am probably a late early-adapter. I love my Google Reader (to many of you, this is no big deal). For a once aspiring journalist with journalism in his blood and currently living as a stay at home parent, it IS a big deal.
I used to spend too much time moving from website to website finding my favorite writing; now I can get my favorites and find others in minutes. I've created my own online newspaper--I don't have to deal with slow, expensive and poorly delivered subscriptions. I still like my newspaper, but I LOVE my Google Reader (I even get a few more free stats about my own blog through the Reader). I haven't quite figured out my threshold for subscriptions, but my new media reality with Google Reader is crafted a little bit like a baseball roster.
On the roster (blogs and podcasts I read/listen to regularly):
*Mariners Blog-Geoff Baker-Seattle Times
*Paul Krugman (Economist and NY Times Columnist)
*U.S.S. Mariner (The essence of Seattle Mariner Geekdom)
*Lookout Landing (See USS Mariner)
*Husky Football-Bob Candotta-Seattle Times
*Seth's Godin Blog (Marketing sage, but a lot more interesting than marketing itself--I would call this "ideas shared.")
*The Chronicle (Of Higher Education): Brainstorm (Scholars and educator commentary on education and the world at large)
*Church Marketing Sucks (A deeper reflection on the public Church)
*The dish--Keith Law (an ESPN baseball writer, but only partially baseball oriented--more books, music and food writing)
*Patchwork Nation (a deeper, more accessible look at American demographics on the county level from the Christian Science Monitor)
*Bleeding Blue and Teal (See U.S.S. Mariner)
*Bill Simmons-ESPN (Great sports and pop culture commentary, though a little too much professional basketball (with a league I will not name) for my taste)
*Matt Taibbi's blog | The Smirking Chimp (political commentary)
*TheoBilly (my good friend, and a good pastor)
*PTI "Pardon The Interruption" Tony Kornheiser and Michael Wilbon (The only journalists that I'm willing to listen to scream about anything-I miss Tony's radio show)
*Real Time with Bill Maher (Though he can be too much of a screamer at times, the comedy and swearing help)
I have several others I read and try, but only these are on the 25 blog/podcast roster.
Recently dropped and sent to the minors:
Keith Olberman
Rachel Maddow
These two seem more like propagandists than journalists or commentators. They served a purpose while I lived in the Sioux Falls bubble and traversed isolated South Dakota. I can't stand listening to Olberman and Maddow anymore.
We shall see how this roster develops--I would appreciate hearing about your favorite items in your own online newspaper.
I used to spend too much time moving from website to website finding my favorite writing; now I can get my favorites and find others in minutes. I've created my own online newspaper--I don't have to deal with slow, expensive and poorly delivered subscriptions. I still like my newspaper, but I LOVE my Google Reader (I even get a few more free stats about my own blog through the Reader). I haven't quite figured out my threshold for subscriptions, but my new media reality with Google Reader is crafted a little bit like a baseball roster.
On the roster (blogs and podcasts I read/listen to regularly):
*Mariners Blog-Geoff Baker-Seattle Times
*Paul Krugman (Economist and NY Times Columnist)
*U.S.S. Mariner (The essence of Seattle Mariner Geekdom)
*Lookout Landing (See USS Mariner)
*Husky Football-Bob Candotta-Seattle Times
*Seth's Godin Blog (Marketing sage, but a lot more interesting than marketing itself--I would call this "ideas shared.")
*The Chronicle (Of Higher Education): Brainstorm (Scholars and educator commentary on education and the world at large)
*Church Marketing Sucks (A deeper reflection on the public Church)
*The dish--Keith Law (an ESPN baseball writer, but only partially baseball oriented--more books, music and food writing)
*Patchwork Nation (a deeper, more accessible look at American demographics on the county level from the Christian Science Monitor)
*Bleeding Blue and Teal (See U.S.S. Mariner)
*Bill Simmons-ESPN (Great sports and pop culture commentary, though a little too much professional basketball (with a league I will not name) for my taste)
*Matt Taibbi's blog | The Smirking Chimp (political commentary)
*TheoBilly (my good friend, and a good pastor)
*PTI "Pardon The Interruption" Tony Kornheiser and Michael Wilbon (The only journalists that I'm willing to listen to scream about anything-I miss Tony's radio show)
*Real Time with Bill Maher (Though he can be too much of a screamer at times, the comedy and swearing help)
I have several others I read and try, but only these are on the 25 blog/podcast roster.
Recently dropped and sent to the minors:
Keith Olberman
Rachel Maddow
These two seem more like propagandists than journalists or commentators. They served a purpose while I lived in the Sioux Falls bubble and traversed isolated South Dakota. I can't stand listening to Olberman and Maddow anymore.
We shall see how this roster develops--I would appreciate hearing about your favorite items in your own online newspaper.
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
An addition to Famous North Dakotans? Thoughts on Chuck Klosterman's work
After reviewing a few lists of famous North Dakotans I didn't find Chuck Klosterman on those lists. A few theories and thoughts: 1) Does a famous North Dakotan have to be born in North Dakota? According to his profile, though he was born in Minnesota, he was raised in Wyndmere, North Dakota, graduated from North Dakota, and probably wrote one of the more famous pieces of fiction based on a composite North Dakota town, Downtown Owl. Having not read Downtown Owl (it's on my list), but having recently completed Chuck Klosterman IV: A Decade of Curious People and Dangerous Ideas, 2) I now wonder whether North Dakota doesn't want to claim him. Some of his work is a little explicit for all of those Norwegian-Americans in North Dakota. 3) What distinguishes someone as "famous?" Is it that their names are part of wider public discourse? That their name is recognized by a wider audience? Klosterman has written for Spin, Esquire, ESPN the Magazine, and The New York Times Magazine, to name a few.
Even though I lived in South Dakota for over 8 years and admired the state, I always thought North Dakota was a little bit cooler than South Dakota for a few reasons:
1. North Dakota colleges and universities are way better at sports than South Dakota colleges and universities (though the gap may be closing). Until a few years ago, the University of North Dakota had the only Division I sports team in the Dakotas (UND Hockey). UND Hockey is really cool (literally and figuratively).
2. North Dakota is much more obscure (which I consider cool). You have to want to go there. South Dakota is drive-through country--with Mt. Rushmore, Wall Drug, and being on Interstate 90--the great path from the West to the Northeast, New England and the Atlantic Ocean, not to mention several large metropolitan areas along the way, many folks can say they've at least driven through South Dakota, and for seemingly good reasons. North Dakota also doesn't have a city over 100,000 people and doesn't have as much easy access popular culture on well-traveled paths as South Dakota.
3. North Dakota has easier access to the bountiful and mysterious north that is Canada.
4. I suppose North Dakota is literally cooler in temperature than South Dakota.
5. Chuck Klosterman.
After reading one of his fabulous articles in ESPN the Magazine a few years ago, I picked up a copy of Sex, Drugs and Cocoa Puffs: A Low Culture Manifesto. I enjoyed this book as I resonated with the Gen X perspective, but also appreciated the anti-academic, yet still sharp and intelligent observation and writing. Chuck Klosterman IV is a similar product to Sex, Drugs and Cocoa Puffs in its intelligence, but it tracks his work (mostly from Spin and Esquire) for a decade. The (London) Evening Standard called Klosterman's work "Ferociously clever and ferociously self-deprecating." Klosterman accomplishes this rare (unique?) combination with tight and economical writing. I particularly enjoyed the introductions to each of his columns/essays. For example:
"You are offered a Brain Pill. If you swallow this pill, you will become 10 percent more intelligent than you currently are...to all other people you meet, you will seem 20 percent less intelligent...Do you take this pill (p. 259)?" This is an introduction to a specific critique of Entertainment Weekly's look at Guilty Pleasures in entertainment. The introduction is good on its own, but it's even better when considered with the essay.
I also appreciated his look at the useless and misguided level of astonishment in cultural critique: "Why do non religious people think that the Christian Right shouldn't have a voice in government? Why do conservatives get angry bout the prospect of gay marriage, even if they've never met a gay person and never will...culture can't be wrong...people can be wrong, and movements can be wrong. But culture--as a whole--cannot be wrong. Culture is just there (p. 267).
The following could be classified as a Gen X perspective, but what I appreciate about the following quote is that Klosterman articulates my reflections on politics and public discourse better than I can myself (I know because I've tried a few times in this blog and foolishly on message boards): "Whenever I meet someone who openly identifies themselves as a Republican or a Democrat, my immediate thought is always 'Well, this person might be interesting, but they'll never say anything about politics that is remotely useful to me.' I refuse to discuss abortion with anyone who is pro-life or pro-choice...All the world's stupidest people are either zealots or atheists. If you want to truly deduce how intelligent someone is, just ask this person how they feel about any issue that doesn't have an answer; the more certainty they express, the less sense they have. This is because certainty only comes from dogma (p. 240)."
I value this kind of thought, but it sure is hard to articulate challenging thoughts such as these from within the church especially from the pulpit or leadership position. Few people in the Church will question the Church in a valuable way. I think there is too much on the line on multiple levels. I certainly don't have the courage to do it on many occasions. From where will the next Martin Luther come? Luther was great thinker with a heart for the common person, a love for God and the mysteries of God, and someone with the courage to articulate where the Church is lost while still holding a love for the Church.
I'm not sure whether Klosterman is intentionally left off the famous North Dakotans lists for his challenging writing, or that he frankly writes about sex and drugs at the dark side of humanity at times. He doesn't glorify the darkness of humanity, but he asks great questions about it and makes great observations. This writing brings to mind the seminal Gen X writer, Douglas Coupland, with his sometimes dizzying prose, dancing the fence of disbelief suspended. But Klosterman's journalistic background also takes his low culture philosophy to a place Coupland cannot go: some of the things Klosterman reports could not possibly be made up. This makes Klosterman a way cool North Dakotan, even if he may not widely be claimed as famous.
Even though I lived in South Dakota for over 8 years and admired the state, I always thought North Dakota was a little bit cooler than South Dakota for a few reasons:
1. North Dakota colleges and universities are way better at sports than South Dakota colleges and universities (though the gap may be closing). Until a few years ago, the University of North Dakota had the only Division I sports team in the Dakotas (UND Hockey). UND Hockey is really cool (literally and figuratively).
2. North Dakota is much more obscure (which I consider cool). You have to want to go there. South Dakota is drive-through country--with Mt. Rushmore, Wall Drug, and being on Interstate 90--the great path from the West to the Northeast, New England and the Atlantic Ocean, not to mention several large metropolitan areas along the way, many folks can say they've at least driven through South Dakota, and for seemingly good reasons. North Dakota also doesn't have a city over 100,000 people and doesn't have as much easy access popular culture on well-traveled paths as South Dakota.
3. North Dakota has easier access to the bountiful and mysterious north that is Canada.
4. I suppose North Dakota is literally cooler in temperature than South Dakota.
5. Chuck Klosterman.
After reading one of his fabulous articles in ESPN the Magazine a few years ago, I picked up a copy of Sex, Drugs and Cocoa Puffs: A Low Culture Manifesto. I enjoyed this book as I resonated with the Gen X perspective, but also appreciated the anti-academic, yet still sharp and intelligent observation and writing. Chuck Klosterman IV is a similar product to Sex, Drugs and Cocoa Puffs in its intelligence, but it tracks his work (mostly from Spin and Esquire) for a decade. The (London) Evening Standard called Klosterman's work "Ferociously clever and ferociously self-deprecating." Klosterman accomplishes this rare (unique?) combination with tight and economical writing. I particularly enjoyed the introductions to each of his columns/essays. For example:
"You are offered a Brain Pill. If you swallow this pill, you will become 10 percent more intelligent than you currently are...to all other people you meet, you will seem 20 percent less intelligent...Do you take this pill (p. 259)?" This is an introduction to a specific critique of Entertainment Weekly's look at Guilty Pleasures in entertainment. The introduction is good on its own, but it's even better when considered with the essay.
I also appreciated his look at the useless and misguided level of astonishment in cultural critique: "Why do non religious people think that the Christian Right shouldn't have a voice in government? Why do conservatives get angry bout the prospect of gay marriage, even if they've never met a gay person and never will...culture can't be wrong...people can be wrong, and movements can be wrong. But culture--as a whole--cannot be wrong. Culture is just there (p. 267).
The following could be classified as a Gen X perspective, but what I appreciate about the following quote is that Klosterman articulates my reflections on politics and public discourse better than I can myself (I know because I've tried a few times in this blog and foolishly on message boards): "Whenever I meet someone who openly identifies themselves as a Republican or a Democrat, my immediate thought is always 'Well, this person might be interesting, but they'll never say anything about politics that is remotely useful to me.' I refuse to discuss abortion with anyone who is pro-life or pro-choice...All the world's stupidest people are either zealots or atheists. If you want to truly deduce how intelligent someone is, just ask this person how they feel about any issue that doesn't have an answer; the more certainty they express, the less sense they have. This is because certainty only comes from dogma (p. 240)."
I value this kind of thought, but it sure is hard to articulate challenging thoughts such as these from within the church especially from the pulpit or leadership position. Few people in the Church will question the Church in a valuable way. I think there is too much on the line on multiple levels. I certainly don't have the courage to do it on many occasions. From where will the next Martin Luther come? Luther was great thinker with a heart for the common person, a love for God and the mysteries of God, and someone with the courage to articulate where the Church is lost while still holding a love for the Church.
I'm not sure whether Klosterman is intentionally left off the famous North Dakotans lists for his challenging writing, or that he frankly writes about sex and drugs at the dark side of humanity at times. He doesn't glorify the darkness of humanity, but he asks great questions about it and makes great observations. This writing brings to mind the seminal Gen X writer, Douglas Coupland, with his sometimes dizzying prose, dancing the fence of disbelief suspended. But Klosterman's journalistic background also takes his low culture philosophy to a place Coupland cannot go: some of the things Klosterman reports could not possibly be made up. This makes Klosterman a way cool North Dakotan, even if he may not widely be claimed as famous.
Saturday, July 04, 2009
On Independence Day
Independence Day was a favorite holiday as a child because it usually meant special activities. We spent a few days at the ocean, watched or lit fireworks, visited some friends at the lake, or have a family gathering at a park. These celebrations weren't overly special, but activities that created anticipation. What does Independence Day mean to me and what will my dear wife and I teach our children?
It's not part of my belief system that my freedom comes from living in the United States, but my freedom comes from God in Jesus Christ. It's still a blessing to live in the United States, but it is not the source of my freedom. I don't attach that freedom to the military or any public servant--but I ascribe to the teaching of Martin Luther that good government is a blessing from God.
I am not an anti-government type, nor do I believe that government is a solution to all problems, even though the zealots from either end of the spectrum seem to enjoy the pigeon-hole process. I do appreciate the positive contributions to my life from the military and leaders in the United States Government. The path of my family changed dramatically when my Grandfather served in World War II on the U.S.S. Washington. With his GI Bill he moved to Washington State and became the first person in his family to graduate from college--a degree in journalism from the University of Washington. He met my grandmother before starting college--another family without a college graduate. We don't have a lot of college graduates in our family, but "furthering education" has been a family value since the GI Bill. Could my Grandfather have gained a college education without help from the US Government? Maybe, but not likely. The GI Bill provided opportunity for many military men and women, making an investment in the future of the nation. I believe the GI Bill was a great investment for the good of the country and its people. Though I can be persuaded to believe that government shouldn't be involved in certain things, someone will have a hard time convincing me that the government is not an important player in investing in people for the common good. Through the GI Bill my Grandfather learned what was possible, and was given the resources to do it. Our family tree was changed.
I met a man in South Dakota Ranch Country who said his biggest regret in life was that he didn't use his GI Bill. I hope that the government is not the sole source of opportunity, but I'm glad that it takes part. Independence Day is another reminder of gratitude in this country for our opportunities. But my freedom comes from God.
I'm not sure yet what we will teach our children--but we had a special day playing at the beach with friends and watching fireworks from our car. The glass and metal barrier of the vehicle gave some security to our oldest daughter who doesn't "like the booming fireworks." I think I will tell them stories of how Americans in her family have contributed to the good of the world--maybe their are other days we can offer critique, but Independence Day can be a day can be a day of reflection about those contributions.
It's not part of my belief system that my freedom comes from living in the United States, but my freedom comes from God in Jesus Christ. It's still a blessing to live in the United States, but it is not the source of my freedom. I don't attach that freedom to the military or any public servant--but I ascribe to the teaching of Martin Luther that good government is a blessing from God.
I am not an anti-government type, nor do I believe that government is a solution to all problems, even though the zealots from either end of the spectrum seem to enjoy the pigeon-hole process. I do appreciate the positive contributions to my life from the military and leaders in the United States Government. The path of my family changed dramatically when my Grandfather served in World War II on the U.S.S. Washington. With his GI Bill he moved to Washington State and became the first person in his family to graduate from college--a degree in journalism from the University of Washington. He met my grandmother before starting college--another family without a college graduate. We don't have a lot of college graduates in our family, but "furthering education" has been a family value since the GI Bill. Could my Grandfather have gained a college education without help from the US Government? Maybe, but not likely. The GI Bill provided opportunity for many military men and women, making an investment in the future of the nation. I believe the GI Bill was a great investment for the good of the country and its people. Though I can be persuaded to believe that government shouldn't be involved in certain things, someone will have a hard time convincing me that the government is not an important player in investing in people for the common good. Through the GI Bill my Grandfather learned what was possible, and was given the resources to do it. Our family tree was changed.
I met a man in South Dakota Ranch Country who said his biggest regret in life was that he didn't use his GI Bill. I hope that the government is not the sole source of opportunity, but I'm glad that it takes part. Independence Day is another reminder of gratitude in this country for our opportunities. But my freedom comes from God.
I'm not sure yet what we will teach our children--but we had a special day playing at the beach with friends and watching fireworks from our car. The glass and metal barrier of the vehicle gave some security to our oldest daughter who doesn't "like the booming fireworks." I think I will tell them stories of how Americans in her family have contributed to the good of the world--maybe their are other days we can offer critique, but Independence Day can be a day can be a day of reflection about those contributions.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Really Behind The Movies--The Devil Wears Prada
I recall seeing the novel upon which this film was based everywhere--maybe it was a time I spent many days in bookstores spending money I did not have. I must have had something in common with the film's main character played by Anne Hathaway--someone who knew little or nothing about the world of fashion. I recall web searching "Prada" during the apex of the book's popularity; if I was going to avoid pop culture, I needed to know a little more about what I was avoiding. I had no desire to read the book or watch the film, but this was another opportunity for a discussion topic with my dear wife. Wonderful thing about these films is that they provide some detachment from church topics, yet also provide theological grist for the mill should we decide to go in that direction. At the very least, I get to snuggle with my dear wife on the sofa.
I originally believed this movie would go toward the dark side of the Sex and The City series, a vapid depiction of gratuitous consumption in the fashion world. Thankfully, I was wrong about the story line, and it moved toward the good side of Sex and The City, which is sharp dialog, intriguing relationships and insightful social commentary. Though I don't know the book, the storyline avoids vapidity partly from the strong casting of Stanley Tucci and Meryl Streep. There is no way Anne Hathaway could carry this story on her own, and she is teetering on future typecasting with mere clumsy/awkward/tentative charm. She is uplifted in her films by some powerful and talented actors, like Tucci and Streep, and also Julie Andrews in The Princess Diaries (no need to review this one--it's like Prada but with no depth of social reflection). I hope Hathaway has taken copious notes on her colleagues' work with such close observations, for Tucci and Streep only magnify their versatility in this film.
It seems that Streep gives a screenplay writer of a popular novel a fighting chance for public discourse to proclaim that the movie matches the ethos of the book. A few Streep monologues ring powerful in this film above the craft of the story itself. In one scene that gives a primary lesson to Hathaway's fashion neophyte, Streep deftly, elegantly and implicitly describes that fashion does not deserve all of the critique from the masses: fashion is where art and beauty meet utility and accessibility. This convergence of beauty and utility also provides thousands and thousands of jobs, a point that couldn't be lost on Hathaway's character, who had won an award for covering a janitor union labor dispute in Chicago. Streep's character does this plausibly and beautifully (with just enough smugness) in a 3-minute scene while glancing at Hathaway's cerulean sweater.
Certainly this film will be entertaining for the fashion gawkers, and Hathaway provides plenty of fodder for that kind of entertainment. In the end, the wonderful surprise of this film is that different social perspectives come to this story, they meet and mingle, confront and question, and come out going their separate ways without acidic and destructive critique. For a story and film that reflects on image, the story is not preachy or overtly critical. It is possible for empathic feelings for all the characters, a rare feat in a story or film. This film was a pleasant surprise during this past week of a surreal and odd look at image through the deaths of 3 oddly different, yet similar public figures, Michael Jackson, Farah Fawcett and Billy Mays.
Image is much more complex than the over-simplification that can happen in popular media. This is not to say popular media doesn't play an important role in public discourse, only that it is incomplete. The Devil Wears Prada adds to the depth of discussion about image. I am currently reading a book by Chuck Klosterman that will take that depth to a new and enjoyable level. I will write on this book soon.
I originally believed this movie would go toward the dark side of the Sex and The City series, a vapid depiction of gratuitous consumption in the fashion world. Thankfully, I was wrong about the story line, and it moved toward the good side of Sex and The City, which is sharp dialog, intriguing relationships and insightful social commentary. Though I don't know the book, the storyline avoids vapidity partly from the strong casting of Stanley Tucci and Meryl Streep. There is no way Anne Hathaway could carry this story on her own, and she is teetering on future typecasting with mere clumsy/awkward/tentative charm. She is uplifted in her films by some powerful and talented actors, like Tucci and Streep, and also Julie Andrews in The Princess Diaries (no need to review this one--it's like Prada but with no depth of social reflection). I hope Hathaway has taken copious notes on her colleagues' work with such close observations, for Tucci and Streep only magnify their versatility in this film.
It seems that Streep gives a screenplay writer of a popular novel a fighting chance for public discourse to proclaim that the movie matches the ethos of the book. A few Streep monologues ring powerful in this film above the craft of the story itself. In one scene that gives a primary lesson to Hathaway's fashion neophyte, Streep deftly, elegantly and implicitly describes that fashion does not deserve all of the critique from the masses: fashion is where art and beauty meet utility and accessibility. This convergence of beauty and utility also provides thousands and thousands of jobs, a point that couldn't be lost on Hathaway's character, who had won an award for covering a janitor union labor dispute in Chicago. Streep's character does this plausibly and beautifully (with just enough smugness) in a 3-minute scene while glancing at Hathaway's cerulean sweater.
Certainly this film will be entertaining for the fashion gawkers, and Hathaway provides plenty of fodder for that kind of entertainment. In the end, the wonderful surprise of this film is that different social perspectives come to this story, they meet and mingle, confront and question, and come out going their separate ways without acidic and destructive critique. For a story and film that reflects on image, the story is not preachy or overtly critical. It is possible for empathic feelings for all the characters, a rare feat in a story or film. This film was a pleasant surprise during this past week of a surreal and odd look at image through the deaths of 3 oddly different, yet similar public figures, Michael Jackson, Farah Fawcett and Billy Mays.
Image is much more complex than the over-simplification that can happen in popular media. This is not to say popular media doesn't play an important role in public discourse, only that it is incomplete. The Devil Wears Prada adds to the depth of discussion about image. I am currently reading a book by Chuck Klosterman that will take that depth to a new and enjoyable level. I will write on this book soon.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Really Behind The Movies--"Gran Torino"
Watching Clint Eastwood gives me hope for my older years. Eastwood wrote, directed and produced the 2008 film "Gran Torino." I hope that my creativity, talent and work ethic is lived out like Eastwood when I am in my late 70's. I can't remember dialogue so well crafted throughout a two-hour film. Usually during that length of film, there is some drag in conversation. If anything, Eastwood's character and his gigantic lexicon of head-shaking racist titles for his Detroit neighborhood neighbors offers enough anticipation for the next scene. However, there is much more to this story.
One thing should be said about this film that will probably not be said in any review--and it's actually something I have some authority to address. Gran Torino offers one of the best portrayals of a clergy person I have seen on television or film, if not the best. The Roman Catholic parish priest in this neighborhood is a strong, but young presence. He attempts to show that he is worthy of his charge, while revealing his inexperience even more (been there, done that). Though the priest shows great courage with his persistence in talking to Eastwood's character, and even though the cantankerous man calls him "over-educated" and doesn't want him to come around anymore (despite the priest's promise to his Eastwood's deceased wife), the priest persists. This persistence is also linked to his work with local Hmong gangs that are gaining a foothold in Eastwood's neighborhood, with whom he continues to interact. The priest seems to have the sense that he has a vigilante on his hands, but he is realistic regarding what can be done about the escalating racially charged violence in the neighborhood. The priest balances his understanding of the pastoral office, while also showing a believable humanity that I can't recall ever seeing.
In the end, what I appreciate about the priest in this film is that he bucks about every image of clergy on television, whether real or fictitious. Televangelists may attempt to craft an authentic image, but it appears to be a public relations campaign or a dramatic script. They may attempt to be more authentic because they wear jeans, or employ images from popular culture. For actors playing clergy, they're too one dimensional or predictable, they're monolithic--overfocused on being cool, moral, or they look like a lovable loser-- a buffoon. There's also the actor playing a clergy person who has lost their faith, and we watch their fall from vocation. The priest in Gran Torino changes and learns. He has gifts and deficits. He is courageous and fearful. He is idealistic yet realistic. He is a peacemaker, but also resonates with vengeance. Though my experiences as a clergy person don't mirror the priest in Gran Torino, the character is depicted in a way I was taught creates a story; the character changes. Change is important to me, because if change in people isn't possible, I should pack up all of my stuff and find another line of work. I believe transformation is possible. I believe Jesus is the best way that transformation is possible. I have learned not to be surprised by people's actions, but I try to learn the best way to redirect energy, with hope for transformation--I know there will be pain and suffering along the way.
The other angle I appreciated in Gran Torino is in its depiction of violence. The story of people and relationships woven with violence in Gran Torino serves as a reminder that violence is not a simple topic as pacifists or the NRA crowd would like the public to believe. I can't say anymore about this point without a spoiler for those whom have not seen this film. The topic of violence is presented with realism and care. Though the film is violent at times, it is not gratuitous.
In the end, I have also gained an appreciation for what I have seen as a clergy person. I have seen cultures, people and relationships I would have not otherwise seen. In some ways I see less than say a barber, bartender, or cosmetologist sees or hears. People try to put their best foot forward with us. Inevitably, a clergy person ends up in the cross hairs of life. Often times, I don't have the courage to be in the cross hairs. Sometimes God puts me there. The viewer of Gran Torino finds themselves in the cross hairs of life--I believe it is a film to be deeply appreciated, if not for the angles on which I have focused, but also for many more that can be discovered.
One thing should be said about this film that will probably not be said in any review--and it's actually something I have some authority to address. Gran Torino offers one of the best portrayals of a clergy person I have seen on television or film, if not the best. The Roman Catholic parish priest in this neighborhood is a strong, but young presence. He attempts to show that he is worthy of his charge, while revealing his inexperience even more (been there, done that). Though the priest shows great courage with his persistence in talking to Eastwood's character, and even though the cantankerous man calls him "over-educated" and doesn't want him to come around anymore (despite the priest's promise to his Eastwood's deceased wife), the priest persists. This persistence is also linked to his work with local Hmong gangs that are gaining a foothold in Eastwood's neighborhood, with whom he continues to interact. The priest seems to have the sense that he has a vigilante on his hands, but he is realistic regarding what can be done about the escalating racially charged violence in the neighborhood. The priest balances his understanding of the pastoral office, while also showing a believable humanity that I can't recall ever seeing.
In the end, what I appreciate about the priest in this film is that he bucks about every image of clergy on television, whether real or fictitious. Televangelists may attempt to craft an authentic image, but it appears to be a public relations campaign or a dramatic script. They may attempt to be more authentic because they wear jeans, or employ images from popular culture. For actors playing clergy, they're too one dimensional or predictable, they're monolithic--overfocused on being cool, moral, or they look like a lovable loser-- a buffoon. There's also the actor playing a clergy person who has lost their faith, and we watch their fall from vocation. The priest in Gran Torino changes and learns. He has gifts and deficits. He is courageous and fearful. He is idealistic yet realistic. He is a peacemaker, but also resonates with vengeance. Though my experiences as a clergy person don't mirror the priest in Gran Torino, the character is depicted in a way I was taught creates a story; the character changes. Change is important to me, because if change in people isn't possible, I should pack up all of my stuff and find another line of work. I believe transformation is possible. I believe Jesus is the best way that transformation is possible. I have learned not to be surprised by people's actions, but I try to learn the best way to redirect energy, with hope for transformation--I know there will be pain and suffering along the way.
The other angle I appreciated in Gran Torino is in its depiction of violence. The story of people and relationships woven with violence in Gran Torino serves as a reminder that violence is not a simple topic as pacifists or the NRA crowd would like the public to believe. I can't say anymore about this point without a spoiler for those whom have not seen this film. The topic of violence is presented with realism and care. Though the film is violent at times, it is not gratuitous.
In the end, I have also gained an appreciation for what I have seen as a clergy person. I have seen cultures, people and relationships I would have not otherwise seen. In some ways I see less than say a barber, bartender, or cosmetologist sees or hears. People try to put their best foot forward with us. Inevitably, a clergy person ends up in the cross hairs of life. Often times, I don't have the courage to be in the cross hairs. Sometimes God puts me there. The viewer of Gran Torino finds themselves in the cross hairs of life--I believe it is a film to be deeply appreciated, if not for the angles on which I have focused, but also for many more that can be discovered.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Common Sense (Worn-out language, June 18, 2009 edition)
The initial buzz of digital cable is still present in my household, though it slowly dies down with each passing day. I do my best to see what is available on the media spectrum, and the shouters from differing political commentary perspectives shout one piece of lingo that lost its meaning: Common Sense.
What pushed me toward declaring a new term for the worn out language list involved a digital cable viewing of Glenn Beck. I should have known he was promoting a book, because he was screaming and shouting about common sense, and how politicians, especially liberals, need to have more common sense. Beck has written a book based on Thomas Paine's treatise, Common Sense. I'm not sure how much of a screamer Paine was, but Beck has decided that when promoting his ideas, the shriller, the better.
People believe that they need to scream and/or shout in order to be heard. I have learned screaming is foolish, and my children are the perfect testing ground for this proverb. The more I scream, the less they listen. They may respond to my screaming, but nothing of it is postive. They will scream at their mother. They will scream at me. They will scream at each other. They'll scream at school. It's all part of a vicious cycle.
If a good idea exists, screaming won't advance the idea, the idea should have its own merit. I'm not against marketing, but screaming is not marketing. This is only a small portion of the problem with political commentary. The idea of common sense may or may not have it's own merit--that may be for another post. The interesting thing about how this terminology is used is that "common sense" is presented as a value-neutral term. But the political commentary screamers from various viewpoints use the term, scream it, attempting to shock a viewer/listener into believing that their perspective is normative. Beck screamed that even random liberals thought his writing on common sense is common sense.
Please excuse me for not trusting anyone, regardless of political persuasion, for proclaiming the verity of their common sense. If screaming appears to be necessary, the more screaming uttered, the less thought has gone in to the depth of the idea. I'm sure Glenn Beck will sell a lot of books. Though I'm sure I will contribute in some way, because sometimes I love to watch a train wreck. Sometimes I can't practice what I preach.
What pushed me toward declaring a new term for the worn out language list involved a digital cable viewing of Glenn Beck. I should have known he was promoting a book, because he was screaming and shouting about common sense, and how politicians, especially liberals, need to have more common sense. Beck has written a book based on Thomas Paine's treatise, Common Sense. I'm not sure how much of a screamer Paine was, but Beck has decided that when promoting his ideas, the shriller, the better.
People believe that they need to scream and/or shout in order to be heard. I have learned screaming is foolish, and my children are the perfect testing ground for this proverb. The more I scream, the less they listen. They may respond to my screaming, but nothing of it is postive. They will scream at their mother. They will scream at me. They will scream at each other. They'll scream at school. It's all part of a vicious cycle.
If a good idea exists, screaming won't advance the idea, the idea should have its own merit. I'm not against marketing, but screaming is not marketing. This is only a small portion of the problem with political commentary. The idea of common sense may or may not have it's own merit--that may be for another post. The interesting thing about how this terminology is used is that "common sense" is presented as a value-neutral term. But the political commentary screamers from various viewpoints use the term, scream it, attempting to shock a viewer/listener into believing that their perspective is normative. Beck screamed that even random liberals thought his writing on common sense is common sense.
Please excuse me for not trusting anyone, regardless of political persuasion, for proclaiming the verity of their common sense. If screaming appears to be necessary, the more screaming uttered, the less thought has gone in to the depth of the idea. I'm sure Glenn Beck will sell a lot of books. Though I'm sure I will contribute in some way, because sometimes I love to watch a train wreck. Sometimes I can't practice what I preach.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
