It was a pretty cool movie, but I'm not talking about that... I'm asking for help.
While driving home from class the other night I was disappointed to be reminded that the two local NPR stations I could reach offered music for middle-aged white guys in place of the news or talk I was hoping to find. The one station played mostly old Stax titles with the occasional Elvis Costello??? thrown in. The other was Mama Jazz... 6 nights a week... 8 to midnight. Being a middle-aged white guy, I like both of those offerings most of the time, but for some reason, I was really hoping for some evening news type of fare or maybe a discussion of some current topic by experts in the field. It was then that it dawned on my to flip over to the AM dial. There's always talk over there.
After locating about twenty "local" sports shows from Chicago to Florida - physical range remains one of the coolest things about AM radio - I managed to find The Savage Report. I figured what the heck, at least it was talk. I'm open to other people's opinions. It had been a while since I'd had my intelligence insulted anyway. I picked a great night. He was ranting about the treatment of dogs in China. Noting that if our PETA and other animal rights people were as true to their cause as they claimed, they'd stop pretending to protest here in the states, "where it's easy" and head on over to China to stop this horrible abuse. I quickly remembered why I don't bother listening to anything other than sports on AM radio anymore. First of all, since when does Savage acknowledge anyone or anything's rights outside of America. He must be going pinko on us. Second, is it OK if we apply this rationale to the righteous right who normally camp out in AM land?
As fate would have it, the next morning's NPR Morning Edition featured a story about forced abortions in China. Most people know that Chinese families are allowed to abort girls since they're only allowed one child per family. This story focused on what happens when this rule is ignored. Rural families who farm to survive often exceed the one child per household rule. Many get away with it since they're so remotely located and often interact very little with others, government or otherwise. But when the government gets wind of the violations they send out med students to perform mandatory in-home abortions if they catch you in time. You can imagine the "success rate" of these inexperienced students performing in these conditions. I couldn't have asked for a better application of Savage Logic. I could just hear his voice saying, "if these abortion protestors were true to their cause, they wouldn't bother protesting here in the states where it's easy..." The sad part of applying his logic is that it points out how much more desperately such protest is needed in China than it is here. According to ChristianityToday.com, 70% of Americans believe some form of abortion should be legal, but in China, and I'm just guessing here, no one wants to be told they have to have an abortion! And now, ladies and gentlemen, Michael Savage champions human rights in China! Freaky.
So why then did 2 of 6 major advertisers specifically tell MSNBC they didn't want to run their ads during Savage's TV debut? Who wouldn't want to back this champion of human rights? And why did the other 4 tell MSNBC not to run their ads during his show in the future after his debut? Give this man a break. But the translation help I need most now is this: how will Savage and the rest of the right spin this into some kind of liberal media censorship? Isn't "let the market prevail" a mantra of the right? And wouldn't this represent true market rule? I wonder what it is about the vitriol Savage spews that couldn't withstand the light of television... and worse yet, why does it still exist even in the dark of AM radio nights? Who listens to this guy anyway and why? Even the grumpy old Bill O'reilly manages to mix a little common sense in with his curmudgeonly criticism of people who think for themselves. Anyway... I don't even remember what needed to be translated here, but it had something to do with how Savage wanted people to think and how I translated it initially. I knew I must have messed something up in that translation.
Here's the other one: Bush's support of the UAE port security contract strikes me as a step in developing a partnership with our middle eastern neighbors. I like that idea. In fact, it's the first thing he's said or done consistent with the "spread democracy" justification for the war that I've seen or heard yet. If spreading democracy all over the Arab world was really the objective (and I only doubt that because it was the second or third reason given AND because there seem to be much more effective ways of doing it than flat out invasion/forced regime change) then this partnership is actually a natural extension of that idea. So either he meant it in the first place, and the contract is phase two, or he was lying and now he's covering his ass.
Either way, I like the move. Partnership stands a far better chance of protecting Americans and American interests than world domination. No matter how big and bad the Goliath, there's always a terrorist Davy with a sling and some rocks. Pissing the world off, severing ties with allies, providing radicals with a live-fire training facility hasn't been making many of us feel all that much more secure. Putting people on the payroll usually makes them much more amenable to the cause.
So here's where the translation trouble lies: if Congress and the Right were so game for this administration's moves so far, then why the sudden lack of support for the logical next step? (Granted, congress wasn't THAT supportive of the war in the first place. They said we'll give you the power to declare IF you MUST... and that MUST still hasn't been proven to many peoples' satisfaction, but apparently no one cares about that anymore) Is it because ignorant Americans think this is a war against Arabs? Don't they realize it's to help Arabs? What better way to show that than to trust them with the contract to manage our ports? OK, translate that.
And now, a word from a great Republican:
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. (Teddy Roosevelt, 1918)
Friday, February 24, 2006
Thursday, February 16, 2006
3 Pages about Moors and Christians
Ever heard of the Festival of the Moors and the Christians in Spain? I didn't figure you did. It's a festival that celebrates... yeah, celebrates the Moors wiping out the Christians and then the Christians wiping out the Moors. Pretty weird, eh? Actually it celebrates the fact that the violence is over. Well anyway, it involves simulated battles, defeats and triumphs, and ends with the "followers of the cross" victorious, often capped off by an effigy of Muhammad, whose head is full of gunpowder, being blown up. Now get this part, both Christians and Muslims have participated in this celebration since the 13th century. That's right, Christians and Muslims! And no one gets bent out of shape over it. Imagine. Somewhere in this world, two groups of the faithful celebrate the fact that their violent past is the past and that they now live together peacefully, worshipping the same God.
Here's my point: Don't condemn someone of another faith based on the actions of the few even if those few get all the headlines in the "liberal media."
Here's why: If all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing, then the way many Christians have been responding to the news lately is pure promotion of evil. Passing on uninformed opinions as facts incites violence at some point. That's a far cry from doing nothing.
Here's my summary of the point: If you criticize entire groups of people based on a couple of assholes who claim to represent those people, you're an asshole! Assholes perpetuate evil. Quit it!
Page 2 - Get off Dick Cheney’s back. Here in Ohio (God's country), hospitals are legally bound to report the gunshot wounds they treat. Assuming there’s a similar rule in Texas, it wasn’t VP Cheney’s job to report the incident. I don’t blame him for not wanting to. I do blame him for shooting a guy in the face, and to his credit, he’s taken full responsibility for that. What more do you want? Oh sure, some will say this incident could serve as a metaphor for the administration’s reckless behavior and complete disregard for human rights. Some may even say the VP’s hesitance to report the incident indicates his believing he’s above the law. Some might even say this is the inevitable result of a disturbing pattern of behavior from him and the entire administration he runs from behind the curtain, but I’ll leave that crap to the liberal media... you know, those left leaning commies who suggested being on the wrong end of a shotgun blast was somehow the victim’s fault. They'll take care of the conjecture. All I'm sayin' is leave the guy alone. It's none of our business that our vice president shot a man in the face.
Page 3 - The next sign that the brainwashing is complete: Google, whipping boy for trading in China?! How can we single Google out simply for agreeing to China’s rules in order to do business in China? Are they the first American company to do business in China? Are they the first American company to agree to play by China’s rules?
Google this: “General Motors investment China”
Now which of these two companies deserves to be singled out for their efforts in China? Google is offering a modified version of their American-made service to the people of China. It’s either that or they offer nothing to the people of China and give up on the capitalist idea of expanding their business. Either way, their headquarters and “manufacturing facilities" and employees are all still here in the states. No jobs are going to China. In fact, it may even result in more American jobs. The Chinese people will have access to more information with the modified version of Google than they would have without it.
GM has invested billions of dollars in plants in China. Have they done this simply in the interest of providing their products to the Chinese or does the oppressive nature of the rules have something to do with it? Low wages, abundant unskilled employees, extremely limited employer liability/workplace safety/environmental regulations? Hmmmm... do the math. In addition, GM jobs in the U.S. are disappearing. Is that too much math for you?
So Google agrees to the rules and offers their product in China and in doing so, “endorses the oppressive government’s continued degradation of human rights,” but GM purposely takes advantage of that degradation and we back home who have lost jobs, tax base, whatever, as a result scream “boycott Google” in one breath and “Buy American, Buy a Chevy” in the next. I don't get it. Then again, I don't get a lot of things.
NOTE: GM's investment in the Chinese auto industry was simply the most readily available example to hold up against the evil of Google. To their credit, you could substitute many companies' names in place of theirs in this post.
Here's my point: Don't condemn someone of another faith based on the actions of the few even if those few get all the headlines in the "liberal media."
Here's why: If all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing, then the way many Christians have been responding to the news lately is pure promotion of evil. Passing on uninformed opinions as facts incites violence at some point. That's a far cry from doing nothing.
Here's my summary of the point: If you criticize entire groups of people based on a couple of assholes who claim to represent those people, you're an asshole! Assholes perpetuate evil. Quit it!
Page 2 - Get off Dick Cheney’s back. Here in Ohio (God's country), hospitals are legally bound to report the gunshot wounds they treat. Assuming there’s a similar rule in Texas, it wasn’t VP Cheney’s job to report the incident. I don’t blame him for not wanting to. I do blame him for shooting a guy in the face, and to his credit, he’s taken full responsibility for that. What more do you want? Oh sure, some will say this incident could serve as a metaphor for the administration’s reckless behavior and complete disregard for human rights. Some may even say the VP’s hesitance to report the incident indicates his believing he’s above the law. Some might even say this is the inevitable result of a disturbing pattern of behavior from him and the entire administration he runs from behind the curtain, but I’ll leave that crap to the liberal media... you know, those left leaning commies who suggested being on the wrong end of a shotgun blast was somehow the victim’s fault. They'll take care of the conjecture. All I'm sayin' is leave the guy alone. It's none of our business that our vice president shot a man in the face.
Page 3 - The next sign that the brainwashing is complete: Google, whipping boy for trading in China?! How can we single Google out simply for agreeing to China’s rules in order to do business in China? Are they the first American company to do business in China? Are they the first American company to agree to play by China’s rules?
Google this: “General Motors investment China”
Now which of these two companies deserves to be singled out for their efforts in China? Google is offering a modified version of their American-made service to the people of China. It’s either that or they offer nothing to the people of China and give up on the capitalist idea of expanding their business. Either way, their headquarters and “manufacturing facilities" and employees are all still here in the states. No jobs are going to China. In fact, it may even result in more American jobs. The Chinese people will have access to more information with the modified version of Google than they would have without it.
GM has invested billions of dollars in plants in China. Have they done this simply in the interest of providing their products to the Chinese or does the oppressive nature of the rules have something to do with it? Low wages, abundant unskilled employees, extremely limited employer liability/workplace safety/environmental regulations? Hmmmm... do the math. In addition, GM jobs in the U.S. are disappearing. Is that too much math for you?
So Google agrees to the rules and offers their product in China and in doing so, “endorses the oppressive government’s continued degradation of human rights,” but GM purposely takes advantage of that degradation and we back home who have lost jobs, tax base, whatever, as a result scream “boycott Google” in one breath and “Buy American, Buy a Chevy” in the next. I don't get it. Then again, I don't get a lot of things.
NOTE: GM's investment in the Chinese auto industry was simply the most readily available example to hold up against the evil of Google. To their credit, you could substitute many companies' names in place of theirs in this post.
Thursday, February 02, 2006
Never argue politics or religion
see comments from last post if you're wondering where all this came from...
One common meaning of the term "liberal" is playing loose with the meaning of something as in addressing one's drunken fraternity brothers as follows: "Gentlemen... and I use the most liberal definition of that term"
With that in mind, it is liberal, to me, to vest too much into one sentence or phrase that anyone utters. Speech is, by its nature, much more loosely used than the written word, so it should be especially suspect. But even the written word shouldn't be given that much credence. Take, for instance, newspaper articles. We all know that the "liberal" media only chooses for publication the worst quotes the president ever utters, thereby maintaining their agenda of making him appear stupid. But actions always speak louder than words both written and spoken. For instance, the president's actions during the Vietnam conflict speak much louder than his words about understanding the sacrifice our troops are making at his command. His actions in reforming health care and social security speak louder than his words on those issues. His actions like declaring war speak louder than his words about being pro-life. But I digress.
It is likewise "liberal" to me to vest too much stock in words interpreted over thousands of years, at the request of powerful sinners with their own, especially non-Christian, agendas. The history and distribution of Christianity is steeped with corruption at every turn. (Note I'm not questioning Christianity itself, just many of the purveyors of it) Those who sought only their administration's dominance were often the ones commissioning updated versions of the Bible. Because those who opposed such re-writes were often wiped out entirely, there's little hope of ever retrieving anything remotely objective about the modern English versions we have today. Sorry, no signing statements available. However, this fact doesn't even remotely mean that Christianity can't be followed. The modern Bible, flawed by man's greed as it may be, still gives us great general ideas to work with and Christ, himself, gave us the specifics that matter. While we could argue and divide ourselves for years over every passage in the Bible... take for instance the idea that the word "homosexual" never appeared in it, we'd all be better off if we focused on what does matter and what is clear and subject to far less debate. (oops, I've used another word very liberally... no one debates anymore! We polarize, ignore and condemn. Very UNChristian)
Christ's words were made obvious/clarified beyond question through His actions. These actions, not anyone's words, converted Roman soldiers on the spot. The actions of subsequent Christians also doomed by Romans, converted the Romans who were to kill those Christians. They didn't haggle over what some passage meant. The Christian said a prayer and calmly accepted his fate and, that show of faith converted the would-be executioner. Back to Jesus though. Jesus didn't criticize or condemn; He forgave. He was His brother's keeper. He helped both those who could and couldn't help themselves. He welcomed sinner and saint alike. By this I don't mean there is no sin. Having knowledge of this and blatantly ignoring it is sin. Treating anyone in any way other than you'd expect to be treated is sin. Failing to recognize that every woman is someone's mom, sister, or daughter and then treating her in any other way than you would treat your mom, sister, or daughter is sin. Worshipping anyone or anything that isn't God is sin. We know this. It's that easy. Jesus both told us and exemplified these things for us. When we look at the big picture of the Book, and the little picture of Jesus's life, it's pretty clear. This is NOT a liberal interpretation. It is my humble opinion that any other interpretation would be.
For instance, claiming to be the candidate or party of God... not just sin, but blasphemy. Testing the will of radical followers by mocking their symbols of God (also blasphemy) would be sinful. Jesus wouldn't do that. Assuming your interpretation of a Biblical passage that's already been translated by hundreds of people over thousands of years entitles you to some higher degree of Earthly power than someone who interprets it another way and acting on that belief in a way other than how Jesus would act on it is a sin. You can believe whatever you want, but when it comes to your actions... maybe even your opinions of others to the extent that those opinions guide your actions, use that Jesus test. It's simple.
Much is made today of the complexity of modern life, but it's not that complex. You don't think Jesus dealt with complexity? He dealt with more real complexity than most of us will ever experience. He did it with grace by ignoring those intricacies, avoiding the cymini sectores that our modern politicians have tried to turn us into. Christians didn't trust politicians, didn't even get involved (as Christians) in politics for a reason. If we truly believed what we claim to, we would continue in that tradition. Politics is a necessary evil. Men need it in order to somewhat peacefully live together in an ever-shrinking world. But we don't need to further dirty the name of Christianity by pretending the two will ever work together.
Sure, all empires fall eventually, but ours was doing pretty well until we mixed this cocktail. Let's unmix it before the trend is unstoppable.
One common meaning of the term "liberal" is playing loose with the meaning of something as in addressing one's drunken fraternity brothers as follows: "Gentlemen... and I use the most liberal definition of that term"
With that in mind, it is liberal, to me, to vest too much into one sentence or phrase that anyone utters. Speech is, by its nature, much more loosely used than the written word, so it should be especially suspect. But even the written word shouldn't be given that much credence. Take, for instance, newspaper articles. We all know that the "liberal" media only chooses for publication the worst quotes the president ever utters, thereby maintaining their agenda of making him appear stupid. But actions always speak louder than words both written and spoken. For instance, the president's actions during the Vietnam conflict speak much louder than his words about understanding the sacrifice our troops are making at his command. His actions in reforming health care and social security speak louder than his words on those issues. His actions like declaring war speak louder than his words about being pro-life. But I digress.
It is likewise "liberal" to me to vest too much stock in words interpreted over thousands of years, at the request of powerful sinners with their own, especially non-Christian, agendas. The history and distribution of Christianity is steeped with corruption at every turn. (Note I'm not questioning Christianity itself, just many of the purveyors of it) Those who sought only their administration's dominance were often the ones commissioning updated versions of the Bible. Because those who opposed such re-writes were often wiped out entirely, there's little hope of ever retrieving anything remotely objective about the modern English versions we have today. Sorry, no signing statements available. However, this fact doesn't even remotely mean that Christianity can't be followed. The modern Bible, flawed by man's greed as it may be, still gives us great general ideas to work with and Christ, himself, gave us the specifics that matter. While we could argue and divide ourselves for years over every passage in the Bible... take for instance the idea that the word "homosexual" never appeared in it, we'd all be better off if we focused on what does matter and what is clear and subject to far less debate. (oops, I've used another word very liberally... no one debates anymore! We polarize, ignore and condemn. Very UNChristian)
Christ's words were made obvious/clarified beyond question through His actions. These actions, not anyone's words, converted Roman soldiers on the spot. The actions of subsequent Christians also doomed by Romans, converted the Romans who were to kill those Christians. They didn't haggle over what some passage meant. The Christian said a prayer and calmly accepted his fate and, that show of faith converted the would-be executioner. Back to Jesus though. Jesus didn't criticize or condemn; He forgave. He was His brother's keeper. He helped both those who could and couldn't help themselves. He welcomed sinner and saint alike. By this I don't mean there is no sin. Having knowledge of this and blatantly ignoring it is sin. Treating anyone in any way other than you'd expect to be treated is sin. Failing to recognize that every woman is someone's mom, sister, or daughter and then treating her in any other way than you would treat your mom, sister, or daughter is sin. Worshipping anyone or anything that isn't God is sin. We know this. It's that easy. Jesus both told us and exemplified these things for us. When we look at the big picture of the Book, and the little picture of Jesus's life, it's pretty clear. This is NOT a liberal interpretation. It is my humble opinion that any other interpretation would be.
For instance, claiming to be the candidate or party of God... not just sin, but blasphemy. Testing the will of radical followers by mocking their symbols of God (also blasphemy) would be sinful. Jesus wouldn't do that. Assuming your interpretation of a Biblical passage that's already been translated by hundreds of people over thousands of years entitles you to some higher degree of Earthly power than someone who interprets it another way and acting on that belief in a way other than how Jesus would act on it is a sin. You can believe whatever you want, but when it comes to your actions... maybe even your opinions of others to the extent that those opinions guide your actions, use that Jesus test. It's simple.
Much is made today of the complexity of modern life, but it's not that complex. You don't think Jesus dealt with complexity? He dealt with more real complexity than most of us will ever experience. He did it with grace by ignoring those intricacies, avoiding the cymini sectores that our modern politicians have tried to turn us into. Christians didn't trust politicians, didn't even get involved (as Christians) in politics for a reason. If we truly believed what we claim to, we would continue in that tradition. Politics is a necessary evil. Men need it in order to somewhat peacefully live together in an ever-shrinking world. But we don't need to further dirty the name of Christianity by pretending the two will ever work together.
Sure, all empires fall eventually, but ours was doing pretty well until we mixed this cocktail. Let's unmix it before the trend is unstoppable.
Saturday, January 28, 2006
Venting the thoughts that don't merit a full post on their own but continue to distract me.
I was hoping to run across an image to post by now, but have failed. The previously posted quote was Jon Stewart's commentary accompanying footage during The Daily Show's headlines of President Bush speaking at a press conference during which a hanging camera.. or light??? or something came loose from the ceiling and was dangling. The president continued speaking from his notes, but couldn't help being distracted by the swinging camera. (as anyone, of course, would) Stewart's original comments accompanied only a few carefully selected clips... making it hilariously out of context, but to his credit, he then showed enough of the video to get a better feel for the situation... the president commented on the object, then moved on, and thus didn't look nearly as ridiculous as the initial footage indicated. It was at that point that Stewart said the line. I laughed out loud and thus had to run and post the quote. It's not nearly as fun anymore without a picture to accompany it.
While we're on comical criticism though, I heard some guy on the radio this morning talking about Bush and comparing him to the guy's cat. He said something along the lines of: "he gives those looks as though he actually understands me,he tilts his head, furrows his brow, wiggles an ear, but I know, of course, he can't possibly understand." Come, on, that there's funny, don't matter who ya are. Watch the guy speak sometime with that in mind. Admit it. You see it.
Along those lines, what's with the "liberal media" initially including Dems among those who routinely accepted Abramoff money? Katie Couric is being blasted as the latest, but she's not the first to just lump everyone together into this particularly huge mess. Granted, both parties have done their share of lobby money collecting, but never to this extent and never this brazenly. That was the Repubs this time around, and the Repubs alone. When Dean stood up to Couric he showed the Dems have a spine and when she himhawed about "finding the facts at a later date" she showed the true colors of the "liberal media."
The myth continues: trying to get as many sides of a story as possible in order to present it with as little objectivity as possible now = "liberal" and for some strange reason, that's become a bad thing. It's also become associated with Dems, whether they're conservative, moderate, or liberal. So what our media does these days is bend over backward to shed this label thus they let Repubs (even those with liberal ideas) off the hook without answering questions the vast majority of Americans (the mainstream, whether Dem or Repub or independent) really want to know. They don't do their homework, they say what creates scandal to keep you through the commercials, and it has, decidedly and obviously tipped toward favoring Repubs since Bush 43 first ran for the office.
And speaking of conservative Dems, Jimmy Carter is one. A conservative Christian who favored both fiscal and individual responsibility yet still feels that we all have a responsibility to help those less fortunate than ourselves... as though this were some Biblical idea... something maybe Jesus might have advocated. Can you imagine such a crazy interpretation of Christian ideas?! Or a godless liberal Democrat advocating such nonsense while at the same time believing in balancing your budget even if it means raising taxes so those more fortunate pay their share along the way rather than just benefitting freely from the labor of those at the bottom? But I digress. I got Carter's new book, Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis for Christmas this year. In what little time I've had, I've been reading a chapter or so per night before I go to sleep, but the last few chapters have angered me so much that I've had to change that routine. If half of what Carter delineates in the book is true, I don't understand how Bush 43 hasn't been impeached. (I used the term "delineates" because, unlike me and this 'blog, Carter lays out a clearly stated and thoroughly supported premise for each claim)
Two things lead me to believe Carter's claims might be true: 1) he's always presented himself as a forthright, nonjudgmental man who rarely criticizes by party line, but rather by what's good for the nation or the world. In fact, he rarely criticizes at all, preferring instead to take action. In several places throughout the book, Carter gives praise to Reagan and Bush 41 for doing things that Carter may not have agreed with in method, but clearly saw as being motivated by the greater good. Oddly enough, in each of those cases, Carter then goes on to point out how Bush 43's efforts have all but erased what progress those predecessors gained in those situations. And 2) world events that are easily observable to anyone who chooses to see them support each of his claims. For instance, Carter suggests that Iraq has become a proving ground for terrorists providing them with real-world training scenarios against our troops all concentrated into one area of the world - a luxury they didn't have before our invasion. Granted, this is a matter of perspective, but only to a degree. The book lays out actual events that lead to this conclusion. I've also read a number of articles that predict the future and give Bush 43 credit for his long range plan in which democracy truly does take root through our efforts in Iraq. These articles laud Bush for having the courage to attempt the impossible, something few past presidents would have attempted. I agree. I've even noted some interesting links to the real world in those articles as well, but most of them have been disproven over the last few years. As the actions on the ground fail to meet the think tanks and intelligence community's predictions, so goes the accuracy of these forecasts. Carter's forecast remains in touch with the actions on the ground and consistent with what unfolds as a result.
Another reason I'm inclined to give Carter the general benefit of the doubt is that he has spoken, since his presidency, and probably before that, more through his actions than through his words. When he spoke of his faith publicly during his presidential campaigns, it wasn't because it "polled well," it was because he believed it, lived it and couldn't simply avoid explaining it when asked. At the time, he was criticized for it. Since that time, every public decision and action he has made aligns with Christian values... real Christian values like being one's brother's keeper as opposed to "advertised as Christian values" like "God helps those who help themselves," which was actually Ben Franklin, not God. Habitat for Humanity, his efforts in matters from world crisis to labor negotiations and on and on show a truly and consistenly altruistic motivation. There is neither personal nor political agenda in these efforts. He doesn't do sound bites of his beliefs, he lives them. He's never asked anyone to just believe what he says, instead, through his actions, he invites us all to do what he does. (Try that test with the current president)
He's maintained an even, reasonable course in all of his public life that leads me to believe that his private life is similar. He rarely speaks out against something he sees as wrong without jumping in and trying to right it in a constructive manner, not through public criticism.
In light of all of this, it's frustrating and even scary to read his thoughts about the current state of our nation. It's kind of like hearing a gentle father's rare, harsh reprimand... what's not said says more than what's said. The contrast in this, his first book on American politics, is sharp.
Like him or not, Carter clearly has more experience, education and intelligence than I do. While I understand he speaks from one perspective, I am inclinced to believe it's a more fairly formed one than what we're used to hearing. All this time I figured, ah well, my choice of president didn't win... that's how it goes in our country and that's usually accompanied by some good things I may not have thought about. At the very least, I accept it, believing no real damage will be done. Our system of government has always provided that kind of faith and stability. But I'm beginning to wonder now. There actually seems to be damage. It actually seems to be on just about all fronts, domestic, foreign, economic, morality, separation of powers, war, peace, you name it. Things that past administrations (Dems and Repubs) have accomplished and that have been accepted as positive progress by most Americans are being undone more and more as this administration bulldozes its way through what this country thinks and does. A once respected and feared military is now neither feared nor respected. The Geneva Convention that was once both modelled and enforced by our military has been cast aside. World affairs from poverty and disease to international law that appeared to be on the verge of major breakthroughs at the turn of the millenium now flare up like detonators rather than as working points that bring us together. Many signs do, in fact, point to the end of days, a point the fundamentalists at the root of this calamity like to point out, but what they ignore is that they're the ones bringing it on. It was supposed to be God's plan, not some crazily inspired, overly funded and politically connected American religious group's doing.
I'm beyond wondering why or how anyone can still support or defend this administration. Now I wonder how they stay out of jail... or out of the path of the lightning bolts.
While we're on comical criticism though, I heard some guy on the radio this morning talking about Bush and comparing him to the guy's cat. He said something along the lines of: "he gives those looks as though he actually understands me,he tilts his head, furrows his brow, wiggles an ear, but I know, of course, he can't possibly understand." Come, on, that there's funny, don't matter who ya are. Watch the guy speak sometime with that in mind. Admit it. You see it.
Along those lines, what's with the "liberal media" initially including Dems among those who routinely accepted Abramoff money? Katie Couric is being blasted as the latest, but she's not the first to just lump everyone together into this particularly huge mess. Granted, both parties have done their share of lobby money collecting, but never to this extent and never this brazenly. That was the Repubs this time around, and the Repubs alone. When Dean stood up to Couric he showed the Dems have a spine and when she himhawed about "finding the facts at a later date" she showed the true colors of the "liberal media."
The myth continues: trying to get as many sides of a story as possible in order to present it with as little objectivity as possible now = "liberal" and for some strange reason, that's become a bad thing. It's also become associated with Dems, whether they're conservative, moderate, or liberal. So what our media does these days is bend over backward to shed this label thus they let Repubs (even those with liberal ideas) off the hook without answering questions the vast majority of Americans (the mainstream, whether Dem or Repub or independent) really want to know. They don't do their homework, they say what creates scandal to keep you through the commercials, and it has, decidedly and obviously tipped toward favoring Repubs since Bush 43 first ran for the office.
And speaking of conservative Dems, Jimmy Carter is one. A conservative Christian who favored both fiscal and individual responsibility yet still feels that we all have a responsibility to help those less fortunate than ourselves... as though this were some Biblical idea... something maybe Jesus might have advocated. Can you imagine such a crazy interpretation of Christian ideas?! Or a godless liberal Democrat advocating such nonsense while at the same time believing in balancing your budget even if it means raising taxes so those more fortunate pay their share along the way rather than just benefitting freely from the labor of those at the bottom? But I digress. I got Carter's new book, Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis for Christmas this year. In what little time I've had, I've been reading a chapter or so per night before I go to sleep, but the last few chapters have angered me so much that I've had to change that routine. If half of what Carter delineates in the book is true, I don't understand how Bush 43 hasn't been impeached. (I used the term "delineates" because, unlike me and this 'blog, Carter lays out a clearly stated and thoroughly supported premise for each claim)
Two things lead me to believe Carter's claims might be true: 1) he's always presented himself as a forthright, nonjudgmental man who rarely criticizes by party line, but rather by what's good for the nation or the world. In fact, he rarely criticizes at all, preferring instead to take action. In several places throughout the book, Carter gives praise to Reagan and Bush 41 for doing things that Carter may not have agreed with in method, but clearly saw as being motivated by the greater good. Oddly enough, in each of those cases, Carter then goes on to point out how Bush 43's efforts have all but erased what progress those predecessors gained in those situations. And 2) world events that are easily observable to anyone who chooses to see them support each of his claims. For instance, Carter suggests that Iraq has become a proving ground for terrorists providing them with real-world training scenarios against our troops all concentrated into one area of the world - a luxury they didn't have before our invasion. Granted, this is a matter of perspective, but only to a degree. The book lays out actual events that lead to this conclusion. I've also read a number of articles that predict the future and give Bush 43 credit for his long range plan in which democracy truly does take root through our efforts in Iraq. These articles laud Bush for having the courage to attempt the impossible, something few past presidents would have attempted. I agree. I've even noted some interesting links to the real world in those articles as well, but most of them have been disproven over the last few years. As the actions on the ground fail to meet the think tanks and intelligence community's predictions, so goes the accuracy of these forecasts. Carter's forecast remains in touch with the actions on the ground and consistent with what unfolds as a result.
Another reason I'm inclined to give Carter the general benefit of the doubt is that he has spoken, since his presidency, and probably before that, more through his actions than through his words. When he spoke of his faith publicly during his presidential campaigns, it wasn't because it "polled well," it was because he believed it, lived it and couldn't simply avoid explaining it when asked. At the time, he was criticized for it. Since that time, every public decision and action he has made aligns with Christian values... real Christian values like being one's brother's keeper as opposed to "advertised as Christian values" like "God helps those who help themselves," which was actually Ben Franklin, not God. Habitat for Humanity, his efforts in matters from world crisis to labor negotiations and on and on show a truly and consistenly altruistic motivation. There is neither personal nor political agenda in these efforts. He doesn't do sound bites of his beliefs, he lives them. He's never asked anyone to just believe what he says, instead, through his actions, he invites us all to do what he does. (Try that test with the current president)
He's maintained an even, reasonable course in all of his public life that leads me to believe that his private life is similar. He rarely speaks out against something he sees as wrong without jumping in and trying to right it in a constructive manner, not through public criticism.
In light of all of this, it's frustrating and even scary to read his thoughts about the current state of our nation. It's kind of like hearing a gentle father's rare, harsh reprimand... what's not said says more than what's said. The contrast in this, his first book on American politics, is sharp.
Like him or not, Carter clearly has more experience, education and intelligence than I do. While I understand he speaks from one perspective, I am inclinced to believe it's a more fairly formed one than what we're used to hearing. All this time I figured, ah well, my choice of president didn't win... that's how it goes in our country and that's usually accompanied by some good things I may not have thought about. At the very least, I accept it, believing no real damage will be done. Our system of government has always provided that kind of faith and stability. But I'm beginning to wonder now. There actually seems to be damage. It actually seems to be on just about all fronts, domestic, foreign, economic, morality, separation of powers, war, peace, you name it. Things that past administrations (Dems and Repubs) have accomplished and that have been accepted as positive progress by most Americans are being undone more and more as this administration bulldozes its way through what this country thinks and does. A once respected and feared military is now neither feared nor respected. The Geneva Convention that was once both modelled and enforced by our military has been cast aside. World affairs from poverty and disease to international law that appeared to be on the verge of major breakthroughs at the turn of the millenium now flare up like detonators rather than as working points that bring us together. Many signs do, in fact, point to the end of days, a point the fundamentalists at the root of this calamity like to point out, but what they ignore is that they're the ones bringing it on. It was supposed to be God's plan, not some crazily inspired, overly funded and politically connected American religious group's doing.
I'm beyond wondering why or how anyone can still support or defend this administration. Now I wonder how they stay out of jail... or out of the path of the lightning bolts.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Dear Jon,
Anybody else detect a hint of "I need to get out of comedy" as in "I need to be on a real news show" or "I might even run for office" out of Jon Stewart last night? He was asking Paul Bremer why the Bush administration can't just admit that mistakes were made. He was being pretty diplomatic about it, even telling Bremer that his new book, My Year in Iraq was a start at getting the debate to match the facts. In fact, he even sympathized with Bremer for having a difficult, if not impossible, thankless job that required him to live in Baghdad.
When Stewart finally got down to asking Bremer about the disconnect between the plans, which called for a relatively quick and easy transformation, and the reality, which seems to be an ever-growing quagmire, Bremer pointed out that he didn't have the luxury of playing out the war in theory, in a think tank somewhere, or in some planning room, but rather, he had to deal with the real situation on the ground. Stewart replied that the plan for the war was created in theory... by think tanks... in a planning room somewhere and, by Bremer's own account, those theories looked nothing like the reality.
Stewart asked in several diplomatic ways why the administration didn't simply come clean and level with us. He tried to assure Bremer that we could handle the truth. At that point, Bremer switched from defending the administration's plans to defending himself, and finally, to being afraid of WMD in the hands of terrorists after having dealt with terrorism as a career for 25 years. (The same line of defense/justification for war we've heard all along... and the exact line Stewart had hoped to clear up in exchange for hawking Bremer's book on the show.) To this point, it was the typical, mild, respectful Stewart. Now is when I expected him to do what real news reporters don't - ask the question again since it wasn't really answered.
Stewart didn't do much to hide his frustration, but in a rare move of turning tail, instead holding Bremer to the question, Stewart gave up, pointed out that the show had just spent a 4 minute sketch on "taint" and that he wasn't going to put Bremer on the spot any more than he already had on this show. His gestures and his words were completely submissive. He figuratively threw up his hands and gave up on the show.
Bremer was very cool about it. He joined in on the taint joke as Stewart tried to end the interview and give the book one last pitch... and that was it... the first Daily Show I can ever remember just sort of fizzling out rather than leaving me with a sense of it being finished.
Is it over? Is he moving on to something more serious? Does he not remember that he's drawn more interest to politics than any real news show ever has? Is it not fun anymore? Does he still love me, but he's not in love?
I'm genuinely concerned. Hopeful, but concerned. What gives?
Sincerely,
Luth
When Stewart finally got down to asking Bremer about the disconnect between the plans, which called for a relatively quick and easy transformation, and the reality, which seems to be an ever-growing quagmire, Bremer pointed out that he didn't have the luxury of playing out the war in theory, in a think tank somewhere, or in some planning room, but rather, he had to deal with the real situation on the ground. Stewart replied that the plan for the war was created in theory... by think tanks... in a planning room somewhere and, by Bremer's own account, those theories looked nothing like the reality.
Stewart asked in several diplomatic ways why the administration didn't simply come clean and level with us. He tried to assure Bremer that we could handle the truth. At that point, Bremer switched from defending the administration's plans to defending himself, and finally, to being afraid of WMD in the hands of terrorists after having dealt with terrorism as a career for 25 years. (The same line of defense/justification for war we've heard all along... and the exact line Stewart had hoped to clear up in exchange for hawking Bremer's book on the show.) To this point, it was the typical, mild, respectful Stewart. Now is when I expected him to do what real news reporters don't - ask the question again since it wasn't really answered.
Stewart didn't do much to hide his frustration, but in a rare move of turning tail, instead holding Bremer to the question, Stewart gave up, pointed out that the show had just spent a 4 minute sketch on "taint" and that he wasn't going to put Bremer on the spot any more than he already had on this show. His gestures and his words were completely submissive. He figuratively threw up his hands and gave up on the show.
Bremer was very cool about it. He joined in on the taint joke as Stewart tried to end the interview and give the book one last pitch... and that was it... the first Daily Show I can ever remember just sort of fizzling out rather than leaving me with a sense of it being finished.
Is it over? Is he moving on to something more serious? Does he not remember that he's drawn more interest to politics than any real news show ever has? Is it not fun anymore? Does he still love me, but he's not in love?
I'm genuinely concerned. Hopeful, but concerned. What gives?
Sincerely,
Luth
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Cool article about "Christianity" in America
Luth's NOTE: The "links" in this post don't work... i.e. they're not links at all but simply text versions of the URL where I found the article. I've added a real link to the CheckOutMahLinks section just to the right of what you're reading now. I hope those work!
I've often pondered the academic question of how capitalism fits in with godless individualism much better than communism, and how communism is much more Christian. What?! It's true... in their purest forms. Of course, as long as humans are involved neither will ever exist in anything close to a pure form thus our system is about the best the world can hope for. And yes, I know capitalism is an economic system and communism is more of a political form so the comparison isn't perfect. And NO, I'm not advocating communism. I shouldn't need to say so but I know my friends. Anyway, forget the introductory explanation... here's the new post:
This article explains, more thoroughly and extensively than I probably would ever take the time to explain, one of my biggest concerns with American culture and its political fallout these days. It's long, so I'm only posting the link and a few highlights. I'll start with the first few paragraphs just to give you the gist, then some of what I think are the most frightening points/quotable quotes. (and before you start, Ray, yes, it applies to both "sides" that you think about whenever I post something of this nature.) But there is only one side that I'm concerned with: Americans.
Here's the link: http://www.harpers.org/ExcerptTheChristianParadox.htmla
And here's a chopped up intro:
So you get the idea, right... the issue is, as the article states, 85% of Americans call themselves Christians (the article offers up Israel for comparison... only 77% claim to be Jews), but does the most "homogenous, rich country" in world practice what it proclaims to preach?
Obviously not and the article is full of examples of both how we do it and why it's dangerous. (By the way, that middle paragraph of the intro reminds me of Rush Limbaugh saying, "WORDS HAVE MEANINGS.") The article boasts stats too, but the examples are so obvious to anyone with eyes and ears that the stats aren't all that necessary. My favorite quote... but one that I know isn't nearly as powerful out of the seriously developed context of the article is:
Yeah, yeah I know, but the rest of it isn't even really about politics... you just can't break the obvious connection. And the best part is, McKibben is also a self-proclaimed Christian, youth group participant, Sunday School teacher, the works. Granted, he came to his grown-up beliefs in a way the Religious Right wouldn't tolerate: he's an environmental writer who believes the Book of Job is the "first nature writing" and Noah is "the first Green" but I digress. My point is, he's not dogging religion, just the modern usurpation of its power without the adherence, or even the acknowledgement of its message. I've written before about being careful to only take general ideas from the Bible, and I'm not swaying from that path. While I have some personal questions about Jesus, His overall idea is pretty clear through both His actions and His words.
Anyhoo, the article's a great read and worth the time. I haven't even touched the fact that the "godless Dutch" and many of their godless neighbors beat us in most of the "Jesus-like" qualities we measure. (Note, I won't even call them "Christian" qualities anymore!) Just one more quote:
And yes, those highjackers can be found on both sides of the aisle. Here's that link one more time... it's really a great article. I really want you to read it for yourself. I don't do this very often (seriously endorse other stuff). What struck me about it is the observable evidence on which it is based, its lack of a clear political agenda (any political endorsement you read is the product of your own imagination... or the facts, HA!) and its eloquence in taking the words out of my mouth. So read it for yourself, or don't bother commenting on it.
That's how I roll...
Luth
Here's the link again: http://www.harpers.org/ExcerptTheChristianParadox.htmla
I've often pondered the academic question of how capitalism fits in with godless individualism much better than communism, and how communism is much more Christian. What?! It's true... in their purest forms. Of course, as long as humans are involved neither will ever exist in anything close to a pure form thus our system is about the best the world can hope for. And yes, I know capitalism is an economic system and communism is more of a political form so the comparison isn't perfect. And NO, I'm not advocating communism. I shouldn't need to say so but I know my friends. Anyway, forget the introductory explanation... here's the new post:
This article explains, more thoroughly and extensively than I probably would ever take the time to explain, one of my biggest concerns with American culture and its political fallout these days. It's long, so I'm only posting the link and a few highlights. I'll start with the first few paragraphs just to give you the gist, then some of what I think are the most frightening points/quotable quotes. (and before you start, Ray, yes, it applies to both "sides" that you think about whenever I post something of this nature.) But there is only one side that I'm concerned with: Americans.
Here's the link: http://www.harpers.org/ExcerptTheChristianParadox.htmla
And here's a chopped up intro:
Only 40 percent of Americans can name more than four of the Ten Commandments,
and a scant half can cite any of the four authors of the Gospels. Twelve percent believe Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife. This failure to recall the specifics of our Christian heritage may be further evidence of our nation’s educational decline, but it probably doesn’t matter all that much in spiritual or political terms. Here is a statistic that does matter: Three quarters of Americans believe the Bible teaches that, “God helps those who help themselves.” That is, three out of four Americans believe that this uber-American idea, a notion at the core of our current individualist politics and culture, which was in fact uttered by Ben Franklin, actually appears in Holy Scripture. The thing is, not only is Franklin’s wisdom not biblical; it’s counter-biblical. Few ideas could be further from the gospel message, with its radical summons to love of neighbor.Asking Christians what Christ taught isn’t a trick. When we say we are a Christian nation—and, overwhelmingly, we do—it means something. People who go to church absorb lessons there and make real decisions based on those lessons; increasingly, these lessons inform their politics. (One poll found that 11 percent of U.S. churchgoers were urged by their clergy to vote in a particular way in the 2004 election, up from 6 percent in 2000.)
And therein is the paradox. America is simultaneously the most professedly Christian of the developed nations and the least Christian in its behavior. That paradox—[...]—illuminates the hollow at the core of our boastful, careening culture.
So you get the idea, right... the issue is, as the article states, 85% of Americans call themselves Christians (the article offers up Israel for comparison... only 77% claim to be Jews), but does the most "homogenous, rich country" in world practice what it proclaims to preach?
Obviously not and the article is full of examples of both how we do it and why it's dangerous. (By the way, that middle paragraph of the intro reminds me of Rush Limbaugh saying, "WORDS HAVE MEANINGS.") The article boasts stats too, but the examples are so obvious to anyone with eyes and ears that the stats aren't all that necessary. My favorite quote... but one that I know isn't nearly as powerful out of the seriously developed context of the article is:
But straight is the path and narrow is the way. The gospel is too radical for any culture larger than the Amish to ever come close to realizing; in demanding a departure from selfishness it conflicts with all our current desires. Even the first time around, judging by the reaction, the Gospels were pretty unwelcome news to an awful lot of people. There is not going to be a modern-day return to the church of the early believers, holding all things in common—that’s not what I’m talking about. Taking seriously the actual message of Jesus, though, should serve at least to moderate the greed and violence that mark this culture. It’s hard to imagine a con much more audacious than making Christ the front man for a program of tax cuts for the rich or war in Iraq. If some modest part of the 85 percent of us who are Christians woke up to that fact, then the world might change.
Yeah, yeah I know, but the rest of it isn't even really about politics... you just can't break the obvious connection. And the best part is, McKibben is also a self-proclaimed Christian, youth group participant, Sunday School teacher, the works. Granted, he came to his grown-up beliefs in a way the Religious Right wouldn't tolerate: he's an environmental writer who believes the Book of Job is the "first nature writing" and Noah is "the first Green" but I digress. My point is, he's not dogging religion, just the modern usurpation of its power without the adherence, or even the acknowledgement of its message. I've written before about being careful to only take general ideas from the Bible, and I'm not swaying from that path. While I have some personal questions about Jesus, His overall idea is pretty clear through both His actions and His words.
Anyhoo, the article's a great read and worth the time. I haven't even touched the fact that the "godless Dutch" and many of their godless neighbors beat us in most of the "Jesus-like" qualities we measure. (Note, I won't even call them "Christian" qualities anymore!) Just one more quote:
But remember the overwhelming connection between America and Christianity; what Jesus meant is the most deeply potent political, cultural, social question. To
ignore it, or leave it to the bullies and the salesmen of the televangelist sects, means to walk away from a central battle over American identity. At the moment, the idea of Jesus has been hijacked by people with a series of causes that do not reflect his teachings.
And yes, those highjackers can be found on both sides of the aisle. Here's that link one more time... it's really a great article. I really want you to read it for yourself. I don't do this very often (seriously endorse other stuff). What struck me about it is the observable evidence on which it is based, its lack of a clear political agenda (any political endorsement you read is the product of your own imagination... or the facts, HA!) and its eloquence in taking the words out of my mouth. So read it for yourself, or don't bother commenting on it.
That's how I roll...
Luth
Here's the link again: http://www.harpers.org/ExcerptTheChristianParadox.htmla
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
Something far greater than government intervention
Ever unwrap a kid's toy? In the last ten years or so? What's with all that crap in there and how much does it cost. How much time have you lost untwisting wires, hauling yards of cardboard and plastic out to the garage, accidentally discarding a small piece of the product that got mixed in with the mountain of packaging? Though hampered by a literary mind, even I can guesstimate that the amount of money spent on packaging is huge. Think about one of those classic 5-stick packs of Wrigley's gum - there's more packaging there than there is gum! And that's just your pack. Now think about how many of those little packs roll off an assembly line in an hour... a day... my lifetime. It's staggering. And we're paying for this stuff that we throw away! But that's not the point and the gum is easy to get at in spite of all that wrapping. And since I'm putting it in my mouth, I'm glad that wrapping's there, but does Barbie really need to come packaged in more raw materials than compose my favorite chair in order to safely reach my house?
So I thought I'd use my 'blog for a noble purpose - uniting parents, godparents, aunts, uncles, older siblings, etc. in reducing the amounts of crap we have to buy in order to get the stuff our kids want.
By now you all know I'm a liberal and reducing the massive stream of landfill-bound materials is clearly a good thing in my mind, but my motivation here is much more selfish and, on a worldly scale, much less practical or altruistic than that. I'm just sick of the whole process of breaching the outer plastic wrap, then finding the kevlar perma-tape on the end flap of the box, then finding just the right plastic tab to break off in order to slide the wired and trussed contraption out of the main box, then removing the molded inner plastic, then beginning the unwiring process, then removing the place-holding inner cardboard, then unwiring the main items, the accessories, then finally, the piece of the toy the kids actually wanted. In the meantime, they're out playing with the outer box and the accessories are lost in a pile of shredded cardboard, plastic wrap, molded plastic protective pieces, and a mile and a half of little wires and shreds of cardboard. Mom tries madly to keep up with the trash and wrapping paper so she grabs a lot of it up before it hits the carpet, but in the process, throws away the ONE accessory that, as it turns out, was all the kids really needed anyway, and now we're left, 45 minutes later, with about a buck and a half toy and a $17 pile of packaging.
OK, that sounds cheap... and I'm not when it comes to spoiling my kids. But seriously, how much does the toy cost and how much does all that packaging cost? And what about the labor to put all that packaging together. If it takes half the time to wrap it all up so neatly (and how could it not?) as it takes to get it out, that's gotta cost some bucks. Wouldn't it be in the toy peoples' best interest to work with me on this? But again, it's not even about that. It's about the nightmarishly tedious process of getting one frickin' remote control boat out of her packaging and about the drain on sanity and precious family time it creates on the one day when you relly don't need the stress.
Now, since most of you know I'm a liberal, you may be thinking (based on ignorant interpretations of that term) I'm asking for some sort of government intervention in this situation. Nothing could be further from the truth. As an observer of politics for some time now, I know there's no greater way to institutionalize a flawed process than to have government regulate it. I'm seeking something far greater and more effective than government intervention. I'm seeking a solution. But I can't get it alone. I need all buyers of kids' toys to join me in telling toy marketers to cut the crap. And when I say "tell them" I mean with our wallets... and maybe an email. We all know that money talks. (and government regulation walks) So join me in this battle. Let the toy people know that we love their products as long as our kids love them and we'll keep buying them, but we'll buy the ones that aren't in all the packaging FIRST. If that means buying it used off of an online auction or garage sale, so be it.
Again, I'm not advocating a boycott or anything as ineffective or counterproductive. I'm just saying let's tell them how we (the people with the money) feel. Maybe by the next Christmas or birthday we can actually play with those toys we bought our kids instead of unwrapping them and hauling away the detritus for the entire afternoon.
Who's with me?
Luth
So I thought I'd use my 'blog for a noble purpose - uniting parents, godparents, aunts, uncles, older siblings, etc. in reducing the amounts of crap we have to buy in order to get the stuff our kids want.
By now you all know I'm a liberal and reducing the massive stream of landfill-bound materials is clearly a good thing in my mind, but my motivation here is much more selfish and, on a worldly scale, much less practical or altruistic than that. I'm just sick of the whole process of breaching the outer plastic wrap, then finding the kevlar perma-tape on the end flap of the box, then finding just the right plastic tab to break off in order to slide the wired and trussed contraption out of the main box, then removing the molded inner plastic, then beginning the unwiring process, then removing the place-holding inner cardboard, then unwiring the main items, the accessories, then finally, the piece of the toy the kids actually wanted. In the meantime, they're out playing with the outer box and the accessories are lost in a pile of shredded cardboard, plastic wrap, molded plastic protective pieces, and a mile and a half of little wires and shreds of cardboard. Mom tries madly to keep up with the trash and wrapping paper so she grabs a lot of it up before it hits the carpet, but in the process, throws away the ONE accessory that, as it turns out, was all the kids really needed anyway, and now we're left, 45 minutes later, with about a buck and a half toy and a $17 pile of packaging.
OK, that sounds cheap... and I'm not when it comes to spoiling my kids. But seriously, how much does the toy cost and how much does all that packaging cost? And what about the labor to put all that packaging together. If it takes half the time to wrap it all up so neatly (and how could it not?) as it takes to get it out, that's gotta cost some bucks. Wouldn't it be in the toy peoples' best interest to work with me on this? But again, it's not even about that. It's about the nightmarishly tedious process of getting one frickin' remote control boat out of her packaging and about the drain on sanity and precious family time it creates on the one day when you relly don't need the stress.
Now, since most of you know I'm a liberal, you may be thinking (based on ignorant interpretations of that term) I'm asking for some sort of government intervention in this situation. Nothing could be further from the truth. As an observer of politics for some time now, I know there's no greater way to institutionalize a flawed process than to have government regulate it. I'm seeking something far greater and more effective than government intervention. I'm seeking a solution. But I can't get it alone. I need all buyers of kids' toys to join me in telling toy marketers to cut the crap. And when I say "tell them" I mean with our wallets... and maybe an email. We all know that money talks. (and government regulation walks) So join me in this battle. Let the toy people know that we love their products as long as our kids love them and we'll keep buying them, but we'll buy the ones that aren't in all the packaging FIRST. If that means buying it used off of an online auction or garage sale, so be it.
Again, I'm not advocating a boycott or anything as ineffective or counterproductive. I'm just saying let's tell them how we (the people with the money) feel. Maybe by the next Christmas or birthday we can actually play with those toys we bought our kids instead of unwrapping them and hauling away the detritus for the entire afternoon.
Who's with me?
Luth
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)