Whatever happened to the good childhood?

So I've decided to have a go at a childhood/parenting discussion. I've just finished reading Neil Postman's book, The Disappearance of Childhood, which reminded me of the Good Childhood seminar I attended a few months ago. The question I've been struggling to resolve is this: if children are no longer children (in how they act, and how they are treated), is that really a bad thing? If children are becoming more and more like adults (or as Postman would add, adults are becoming more like children), what is really at stake?

For starters we can take a look at what I mean by children no longer being "children" in it's original sense. Historically, the distinction between children and adults was less a biological fact and more a social construction (that Postman claims arises with literacy, which has since been discredited). By social construction I mean that children were treated differently than adults, they were kept from certain secrets/mysteries of the adult world, they acted differently, etc. Children were, in essence, shielded from the realities faced by adults. The realities were then, in turn, revealed to them slowly and at a time when they would be ready for them. How were they protected? Well, in part, knowledge was in print, and to access that knowledge you not only needed to be able to read, but you also needed to be functioning at a high level of analytical thinking. Today the story is quite different. Knowledge of the adult world is indiscriminately broadcast to people of all ages through the medium of television. It's one thing for a child to read an inappropriate passage in a book (the extent of harm done would depend upon the strength of the child's imagination), and another for a child to be constantly bombarded with violence, sexuality, and materialism on the television. It takes zero effort to assimilate those images, and they inevitably take their toll on the ethos of children's culture. Postman's book was written somewhere around 20 years ago, and his concern was limited mainly to television. But I think it's also safe to add the concern of the affect the internet has on young minds. Parents rarely keep taps on their children's web surfing, and everyone knows the things they can find on there far surpass anything they'd see on primetime tv... This, of course, is old news, but it's worth remembering. I distinctly remember having free reign on the internet when I was in middle/high school. Thankfully, I was a total dork and spent most of my time looking up html codes for building web pages or IMing my friends, but that's not very typical, and parents ought to be more aware of what their kids are finding online...

Now, before I'm branded as the old fashion Puritan who is just overreacting, consider what's at stake. If the realities of adult life aren't suitable for children, then children ought to be protected from them. If they're not protected, then they will ultimately suffer for it. Consider this quote that I am shamelessly stealing from the Good Childhood Seminar. It's from from Juliet Schor’s study of the marketing industry:

Children are being exposed to plenty of glamour, fashion, style, irony, and popular music, that is, sex. Even the family-friendly Disney Channel is full of sexually suggestive outfits and dancing. One Radio Disney employee explained to me that the company keeps a careful watch on the lyrics, but is hands-off with the other stuff… Emma Gilding of Ogilvy and Mather recounted an experience she had during an in-home videotaping. The little girl was doing a Britney Spears imitation, with flirting and sexual grinding. Asked by Gilding what she wanted to be when she grew up, the three year old answered, “a sexy shirt girl”…. Mary Prescott [an industry professional] who is more deeply immersed [than other interviewees] in the world of tweening, confessed that “I am doing the most horrible thing in the world. We are targeting kids too young with too many inappropriate things…It’s not worth the almighty buck."

The saddest part is that this is entirely too familiar. I dare anyone to challenge the claim that today's youth are becoming more and more adult-like in their behavior and tastes. Mean Girls showed it most poignantly when one of the girls younger sister was dancing to Britney Spear's music video and no one seemed bothered by it in the least, as though it's expected for young girls to try and be sexy, even at the age of 7 or 8! I'm young enough to testify to this disturbing phenomenon. I distinctly remember the transition into middle school, where, for the first time, I became acutely aware of my appearance and that of the other girls around me. For the first few months I proudly wore my over sized sweaters handed down from my mom or neighbors. Slowly but surely the girls around me began to shake off their childhood clothes as they adopted the trends of the 7th and 8th graders (who in turn were mimicking the high schoolers who were themselves trying to dress like adults...). I hung in there for awhile, but then the teasing started, and eventually I too adopted the tweeny fashion that modeled itself after adult celebrities.

So children are being bombarded with the message that they ought to be more like adults: what's wrong with that? Is it liberating (as some people seriously suggest, much to my dismay) for children to be broken out of the bondage and suffocation of paternalistic restraints? Maybe it is liberating in the sense that children now have practically unrestricted access to the trials and tribulations of adulthood, but at the same time children are not necessarily ready for this reality shock. Yes, in reality, sexuality is a driving force in our society, but why should that be any concern of children? Why should children feel the need to dress/act provocatively when they aren't even physically ready for sex (let alone emotionally ready for it)? It all seems nonsensical, and that's why I'm so disturbed to see the lack of restraint in the adult sphere when it comes to the information/messages passed on to children. Of course children aren't ready to be adults, that's why they're children, so why aren't they being raised accordingly?

One answer is that adults aren't really adults anymore, not in the traditional sense. They act more and more like children, as though remaining forever immature will be the equivalent of some sacred fountain of youth. You've seen those cheesy talk shows where the children bring on their parents and grandparents in an attempt to get them to "act their age." You have grandmothers wearing miniskirts, fathers beating each other up at little league games, and parents arguing like children. Adults should act differently from children in the sense that they have learned how to hold off immediate gratification in pursuit of long term goals and have learned some self-restraint, but in today's culture that's far from accurate. I've seen enough shows where the parents seek help from someone (like the supernanny!) because they can't seem to control their kids, when the real problem is that they spend all their time trying to befriend their children (in some lackluster attempt at resolving some underlying insecurities) instead of parenting them. Children are now our friends, not our charges, not our responsibilities, so in essence, they aren't really children at all.

The dilemma of the disappearing childhood can be coupled with that of the quest for the "good" childhood. Is a good childhood one in which children are treated more like adults? For example, there are those who think that the middle class suburban childhood is the benchmark of a good childhood. But the middle class childhood is marked by it's tendency to treat children as mini-adults. Parents try to reason with their kids, they let kids make the decisions (from what they want for dinner, to whether or not they want to watch tv or do their homework), they put children in a myriad of organized activities (instead of letting them make up games or play spontaneous pickup games with neighborhood friends). Life becomes a competition, let the parent with the best (most accomplished) child win. While it's true that the middle class upbringing prepares kids quite well (overall) for the competitive marketplace, it seems like they are at the same time robbing children of the bliss of being a child. Why should a 6 year old be shuttled to a different organized sport, music lesson, or acting class every night? Why is the 5 year old deciding whether or not the family should stay in or eat out (and in the case of a girl at the preschool my roommate works at: whether or not the babysitter should have to stay for dinner too)? Children don't need to make those decisions; they don't need that many organized activities. What they need is time to let their imagination wander, to explore their own world without being thrust into the world of adults. They don't need to be maxed out, stressed out, and spoiled. They need to be treated like children, with proper restraint and proper room for growing the imagination and playfulness.

If the middle-class-ambition-driven childhood isn't "good," then what else is there? Should we aim for whatever makes children the happiest? That would certainly fit nicely with our hedonistic society that proclaims: pleasure is the goal, all is fair in the pursuit of it. But what children often want in order to be "happy" (and by happy, it usually means temporarily not a pain for the parents) is often in opposition to what will make them happy in the long run. That realization, of course, they aren't aware of (which is why they are children in the first place), but sadly parents aren't aware of it either. Of course the child wants McDonald's now, but when she's an adult does she really want to be plagued by the habit of eating unhealthily? Probably not, but as a child she didn't know that what happened to her then would affect the person she became later.

A side question to this issue is where Christian parents stand. I was asked once if being raised in a Christian household help shield me better from the materialism (etc) of our society. In many ways it didn't because I still grew up in a fairly affluent suburb where materialism reigned supreme. But at the same time, I was equipped with a pretty compelling message that taught me not to trust in worldly treasures. This varies from family to family, but, if a child is truly presented with Christ's message, then no matter what goes on in the their family they have something else to point them in the right direction. So in essence, being a Christian has shown me where I struggle with the materialism and whatnot of our culture, but that doesn't mean my childhood wasn't steeped in it. The only difference is that I'm aware of it, and I have a good shot at trying to turn that all around now... (this probably warrants it's own post, and perhaps I'll try to get one up soon)

All of that was really just a rambling way of saying that I'm worried about the situation of children in our society and where their future is headed. I'm worried as a non-parent, but I hope to be one, and I do have a sister in middle school who faces all of the aforementioned problems of today's children. Of course I didn't do much for outlining what those problems are; I just wanted to point to the problem as a whole and leave it up to you to think about it some more. I think I'll just leave the discussion here (as incomplete and unhelpful as it is, sorry), and I'll add a small confession. I write this post today as a total hypocrite because while writing it I'm also watching America's Next Top Model (my guilty pleasure) with my 13 year old sister. But hey, that just proves how society has failed me. At least I'm aware of it though ;)

Links:
Good Childhood discussion on CT
Disappearnce of Childhood book
My other parenting post

(okay, so maybe not a lot of links, sorry, but I might expand on a future post...)

More and Monopoly

Well I finished readying Thomas More's Utopia a few weeks back, and I've finally found some time to write out some of my thoughts. Though, to be perfectly honest, the book left me with mixed feelings, and I have yet to resolve them. Perhaps my confusion is the result of reading this book immediately after Orwell's 1984, but who knows.

For starters, one of More's most forceful critiques was his stance on England's use of the death penalty. At the time, almost everything was punishable by death. More, rightly, points out that petty theft and murder are crimes that are not at all the same, and they shouldn't be punished the same either. He also points out, interestingly, that if a "Christian" nation is trivially putting people to death, then it is, in effect, overriding one of the basic commandments. He makes his observation as follows:

"God said, 'Thou shalt not kill'-- does the theft of a little money make it quite all right for us to do so? If it's said that this commandment applies only to illegal killing, what's to prevent human beings from similarly agreeing among themselves to legalize certain types of rape, adultery, or perjury? Considering that God has forbidden us even to kill ourselves, can we really believe that purely human arrangements for the regulation of mutual slaughter are enough, without divine authority, to exempt executioners from the sixth commandment? Isn't that rather like saying that this particular commandment has no more validity than human laws allow it? --in which case the principle can be extended indefinitely, until in all spheres of life human beings decide just how far God's commandments may conveniently be observed."

Personally, I am undecided on the death penalty. There are issues of how well can we really know that the person is guilty, and to what extent does the State have a right to take away the life of somebody. But do serial killers forfeit their right to live when they kill a bunch of people...? I'm not sure. Regardless, in More's case, he's quite right to point out that we shouldn't use capital punishment for just anything. I mean, the crime must be pretty horrible to warrant it. Anyways, this section just reminded me that I need to think on this some more (esp as a Christian, since Jesus' stance on mercy is pretty clear).

And then there's this wonderful part about how Raphael should give advice to political leaders (as a philosopher). The debate is whether or not he ought to, and whether or not anyone would listen if he did. More (the character) says that there's no room for "academic" philosophy, by which I think he means ideal theory, because it's "irrespective of circumstances." But there is, apparently, room for non-ideal philosophy, if only anyone would bother to care. He goes on to complain that "if we're never to say anything unconventional, for fear of its sounding ridiculous, we'll have to hush up, even in a Christian country, practically everything that Christ taught." That quote in particular made me laugh, as sad as that is.

Now here is where I think More is on to something. In Utopia, of course, there is no money and the usual things that we value (gold, gems) are worthless. Instead, everyone does their share and has what they need and they all seem to be content enough. Now all of that is quite attractive when you read it, but then you realize that it's far from practical (at least for a large nation). Utopia is an island with tons of natural resources, natural defenses, the people are raised to be of a certain sort, etc etc. But, one of the great lessons of their little hippy commune, is their attitude towards work. Check out this passage:

"They never force people to work unnecessarily, for the main purpose of their whole economy is the give each person as much time free from physical drudgery as the needs of the community will allow, so that he can cultivate his mind (yay!) -which they regard as the secret of a happy life."

In the US it seems like we live to work, whereas elsewhere in the world people work to live. Why the turn around? Maybe we can chalk this one up to the Puritans.... In any case, this was a discussion in my french business class where we discovered that the French (apparently) don't like to work, and they only want to work enough to have a decent quality of life. I'm not going to lie, our way seems to be quite stupid (working to work so we can work some more?), but I often find myself following in this stupid American tradition. I don't mean to say that we should do nothing at all, but we should have the free time to do the "work"/ activities that we enjoy (for some that means raising a family, for others it's education, and for some still it's something else entirely).

Moving along, here's a passage that struck me precisely because I've thought the very same thing myself. It's about our desire for precious stones when they look the same as non-precious stones (so it's not really an about the atheistic value, per se, but the whole rarity thing):

"There's another type of person I mentioned before, who has a passion for jewels, and feels practically superhuman if he manages to get hold of a rare one, esp if it's a kind that's considered particularly precious in his country and period -for the value of such things varies according to where and when you live. But he's so terrified of being taken in by appearances that he refuses to buy any jewel until he's stripped off all the gold and inspected it in the nude...But my dear sir, why shouldn't a fake give you just as much pleasure, if you can't, with your own eyes, distinguish it from a real one? It makes no difference to you whether it's genuine or not -any more than it would to a blind man!"

I really think he's on to something. Maybe in the future I should have a cubic zirconium for an engagement ring...(though we'll see if I still feel that way by then!). I never did understand what all the fuss was about. I mean, I've had people think my cheap Claire's earrings were real, so what does it matter anyway? If it's really about how it looks, then costume jewelery should suffice... ;)

Oh, and I particularly liked this bit about the law and lawyers (for those who are unaware, I am heading off to law school soon, so I suppose I ought to find this offensive and not funny). This part I think makes a lot of sense, and it's a wonder we haven't adopted it yet:

"It's quite unjust for anyone to be bound by a legal code which is too long for an ordinary person to read right through, or too difficult for him to understand."

The reason our's is so obnoxious is, of course, the lawyer's fault:

"If nobody's telling the sort of lies that one learns from lawyers, the judge can apply all his shrewdness to weighing the facts of the case, and protecting simple-minded characters against the unscrupulous attacks of clever ones."

Unscrupulous, I like the word usage here. What if one day I became a lawyer that's *gasp* unscrupulous. Heaven help us.

So, I thought the book was clever, obviously, it is after all a classic. It was a bit too unrealistic for me (yes, even me, a philosophy student), and I couldn't shake the image of what the State would turn into when it started to implement it (ie, big brother). But, the attitude is right, and we should at least take that away. This, of course, brings me to my follow-up story from a few nights back. I may have some socialist, maybe even communist, tenancies, but apparently in the face of good old capitalist competition those all melt away and reveal my true colors. By this I mean, the other night I played Monopoly with some of my friends and I found myself bending over backwards to get hotels on Atlantic Avenue, Ventnor Ave, and Marvin Gardens (the yellow properties). We were off to a great start because we landing on free parking 5 times in a row, and, apparently, all that monopoly dough can go to your head. Needless to say we ended up bankrupt with nothing by the end, so that shows you something. Everyone has an inner capitalist within, just waiting to be unleashed by a Parker Brothers game. So much for working together in social unity for the common good. Go straight to jail, do not pass GO, do not collect $200...

Bar Talk: US health care, or lack thereof

I'm back with another fruitful bar discussion, only this time it came about quite unexpectedly. My bartending friend has actually left her job at the BW, so my dreams of finding stimulating conversation there with the BW's diverse crowd have been dashed. However, it seems that a college-town bar can be conducive to interesting discussions as well, and I found myself in the middle of one a few nights ago. Though, to be honest, I think the place has less to do with it than the fact that I tend to get more thoughtful about things when I've had a bit to drink, but doesn't? Anyways, the topic of the night somehow-- and I really have no recollection of how-- landed on politics. Those that know me well can attest to the fact that I loathe politics, and for all my political philosophy musings, I simply cannot bring myself to have faith in our current political system. But for all my political pessimism, there are some political issues that I can not shy away from. So when the guy I was chatting with mentioned that he has applied to help out in the Edwards campaign, I put away my pessimism and listened. And soon enough our conversation turned to health care, or more accurately, the lack thereof. We both agreed that the current system sucks, and something needs to be done. Everyone has a right to health care, not just the wealthy or those lucky enough to be in the right sort of jobs. But of course, it's all easier said than done...

You may have come across my post a month or so ago about my disgust with Guiliani's attitude towards health care. I used to share his attitude, and many Americans still do, much to my dismay. Namely he thinks that the quality will go down if we mess with the current system, and our quality is the best in the world so we shouldn't tamper with it. To put it roughly, he's unwilling to sacrifice the quality of care that he receives, all the while neglecting the millions of Americans who receive no health care at all, high quality or otherwise. What's the point of having excellent health care if no one can take advantage of it? But of course, there are the naysayers who boo and hiss at the idea of a universal system because it would, they say, never work. Well, let's have a look...

First, I thought it would be helpful to outline what our current system is like. For those not from the US, you may not be familar with our multi-payer / market system. And for those who are from here, it's important to look beyond your personal expereiences with health care and see what is happening in the big picture. I say that because I went a long time thinking our system was just fine precisely because I had great health insurance, well my mom who is a teacher had great insurance, and I've been a free-rider milking it for all it's worth. But my experiences aren't typical, so I thought I'd look for some answers elsewhere.

There's a great article here that gives an outline of our current system, and if you look here you can read up on a study about how our system is failing to meet quality standards. Here are some things I learned that I didn't know before:

• The US spends more than other countries on health services (after you figure in GDP), but at the same time the US is below the median for it's use of medical services (physician visits, length of stay, etc). Take a look at the US dot. Way to be an outlier guys:
• 17% of Americans under 65 are completely uninsured (yikes), and the uninsured population is on the rise.
• Being uninsured is not just a problem for the poor or unemployed. Most (70%) of the uninsured live in families with at least one worker. Also, one third of the non elderly uninsured earn up to twice the amount of the poverty line ($14, 000 ish for a family of 3).
• My age group (18-24) is the least insured of all other age groups, with a whopping 30% of us going around without insurance.
• Medical costs, not surprisingly, are on the rise, with the average cost of a day at the hospital costing over 10 ten times what it did 40 years ago.
• For all three categories of care that are needed (chronic, acute, and preventative), the recommended care (of an appropriate quality) was provided only about 50% of the time.
• When people don't receive the care they need, they are the ones who pay:

• The US is behind many other developed countries in life expectancy, infant mortality rates, obesity rates...etc. Granted, there are many factors that contribute to this, but it's important to remember that widespread preventative care can do a lot of good. And, with the proper prevention, many Americans can lead the way in changing their daily habits that contribute to poor health.
• Other effects of being uninsured: emotional stress or anxiety, job lock (being unable to leave a job solely because you need the insurance), and bankruptcy...among other things.
  

With over 45 million Americans without insurance, and millions more who are under insured, it's not hard to see that our current system isn't cutting it. In the Case for Universal Health Care, the writers point out that Americans treat health care as a privilege, like owning a car or a DVD player. However, many other countries treat health care like a right that everyone should be able to access, because they see health care more like a public or social good than a commodity to be bought by the highest bidder. After all, who can put a price on health? And even if you could, why shouldn't we make sure everyone has a decent shot at it? Morally speaking, good health is a stepping stone to leading a flourishing life. Like freedom of thought or expression, freedom to maintain an adequate level of health enables people, or gives them a foundation, to live a life that they choose and a life where they can flourish as a human being. If good health is a prerequisite (or some sort of capability, if you're a Sen fan) for living a good life (in whatever form that might be for you), then it should be at the top of the list of things that the people want their government to ensure. Political theorists would probably disagree with this, but I think that the purpose of the government is defeated when it fails to live up to the only reason it's around at all, which is to improve the quality of life that it's members have.

The next question is: what are the costs of reforming the system? Well, it would be expensive (I found an estimate of upwards of $70 billion). And if there's minimal/no cost-sharing (the individual paying something out of pocket), then healthcare might be overused (depending on structure of the solution). Also, employers that provide decent health care now might push employees to take the government provided program, a practice referred to as "crowding out."

And what are the costs if we don't? Well aside for the obvious detrimental effect on people's health, we can expect a loss in productivity from workers, a decreased time-span of years spent working all together, job lock, strain on businesses, and a loss in global competitiveness (because our products carry the cost of privately bought health care).

But there's hope yet, and Dr Kenneth Thorpe, an economist at Emory University, has some positive light to shed the question of health care reform. You can check out his non-partisan study here. The good news is that the government could save over one trillion dollars if it implemented a universal, public financed plan along with cost controls and further measures to improve efficiency.

And once again my goal is high: health care for everyone. Can it be done, I think so. Can it be done in the US, well, I hope so. But before anyone can do anything we must wake up the American population and make them aware of the truth behind our wonderful system. Nothing will change until people see the need. But then again, at the rate that people are loosing their insurance, that time may be coming sooner than you'd think.

Sources:
RAND nonprofit research findings
Nice overview of the US system
Case for Universal Health Care
Impacts of Health Care Reform: projections of costs and savings, K. Thorpe

Nobody likes an Evangelist

Well this post is overdue, so my apologies. I've written a great deal about Christians in the US (or my impressions of them), and I've thrown it out there that I happen to be one, but I don't suppose I've given a very clear picture of what I believe and what mainstream Christians believe. I did give a brief list of some of my beliefs in the first post, but in this one I'll expand on it a bit better. Let me start by saying that I am an Evangelical Christian. There is no hiding it, and I have no shame in calling myself that. The question is: when I say Evangelical, what do you think of? And actually, while I'm asking you that, I'd really love for you to scroll down to the bottom of this post and leave me a comment with your definition or impression of what an Evangelical is. If you do this, do it before you read the rest. If you're definition changes, then let me know that too.

I've met quite a few people that equate evangelicals to Republican card-carrying fundamentalists, but that's far from the truth. While it's true that there a quite a few self-proclaimed "evangelicals" who give off that impression, they too are missing the point. In fact, I've grown up in a sphere of evangelicalism that is quite different from that, so it never occurred to me that other people (even other Christians) might be turned off by it. I've never thought of "evangelical" as a negative descriptor, but now I've realized that there has been a slide in it's usage that is causing quite a few problems. So... I thought I'd give it my best shot and set the record straight (though I owe thinking about all of this in a new light to pastor Chris who gave a very compelling message about this last fall --click on the Nov 5th sermon).

Wikipedia tells us this about the word evangelical:

"The term 'evangelical', in a lexical but less commonly used sense, refers to
anything implied in the belief that Jesus is the Messiah. The word comes from
the Greek word for 'Gospel' or 'good news': ευαγγελιον evangelion, from eu-
"good" and angelion "message". In that strictest sense, to be evangelical would
mean to be merely Christian, that is, founded upon, motivated by, acting in
agreement with, spreading the "good news" message of the New Testament."

So strictly speaking, an evangelical is someone spreading good news. So why the negative connotation? I've always considered evangelical to mean exactly that. I have some good news, and I'd like to share it. In fact, if my belief in this good news is right (and I operate under the conviction that it is) then I should be morally obligated to tell other people about it. If I kept this information to myself, I'd be culpable of a great moral harm. So it seems that I have a moral duty to let other people know what I believe. And that's where this whole thing really begins...

So I have this obligation to tell people about what I believe, but that doesn't tell me how I should go about it. Some people hand out tracks (those little salvation booklets), some televangelise, some go to foreign countries, and others spread the news a little more stealthily. Who's doing it right? Well, I'm willing to bet that every form of spreading the Gospel (yes, even televangelists) has the power to change people's lives. I believe that God can use anything and anyone. I do think some methods may be more effective than others, but whatever, that's just what I think and that doesn't mean anything anyways. To show you what I'm getting at, consider this passage from Philippians. Here Paul is telling us about a group of 'preachers' who are only preaching about Jesus because they want to stir up trouble for Christ's followers. The more they preach, the more trouble the early Christians get in. But, as Paul tells us, their bad motives actual serve God's purpose:

“It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of
goodwill. The latter do so in love, knowing that I am put here for the defense
of the gospel. The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely,
supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. But what
does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false
motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.” (ch 1:
15-18)

There's something to this, and I think this is more important than you realize. Consider the Christians who evangelize today because they've turned into salesmen who have to pitch their product to as many people as possible. Sometimes it seems like they think they're working on commission or something. That bothers me, a lot, but even if it bothers me that doesn't mean that God isn't using their mixed up motivation for his purposes. If you've seen the movie Leap of Faith with Steve Martin you'll know what I'm talking about with all this. He certainly wasn't pitching those tent rivals for God's glory, but even he was brought to his knees in the end.

But that's a bit off track, because most self-described evangelicals preach the Gospel out of love. We are accused (quite often) of being narrow-minded and offensive because we "think that we are right and everyone else is wrong." Well, if we thought that we had it wrong, I don't suppose we'd be telling you about Christ would we? And if you think evangelizing is some sort of power struggle over the truth then you've missed our mission entirely.

So what is our mission, you might ask. Well, it's simple really. We believe that this world is imperfect, but we believe that perfection is the standard to meet. If anything less than perfection was good enough, then just where is the line, and how could anyone possible know if they were good enough? And for that matter, all those naturally-inclined-to-be-a-good-sort-of-person people would be unfairly advantaged, right? Well they're not, because even they aren't perfect. But it's okay, because God knows we suck at doing this on our own... so He sent in a pitch-hitter. Think of it this way: everyone has a chance to cheat on the biggest test of all time, and the teacher is actually encouraging it. In fact, the teacher tells you that by cheating on this test, it shows that you accept your own inability to ace it without help. It's like the test is open book, only some students are convinced they don't need help, so they never open the book. That seems silly right? So the other students (evangelicals) are desperately trying to get the other students to open their books for this open book test. It's not that we're better, it's just that we accept that we're not good at this and we want all the other students to pass too.

Now here's my problem: I don't know if God has other books out there to help the students pass. But I do know that the best one (and the most informative one) is Jesus, and your safest bet is to listen to what he said. But what about all the students who never hear of the Jesus book? I don't know. God knows, and He knows their hearts, and I know He's looking out for them too. It's like the story of the sculptor who never heard the Gospel, but who, upon marveling at the works of his hand, stopped and praised the God who created his thumb because his thumb was able to make extraordinary things. God spoke to him, and God is speaking to everyone. The question is: are we listening?

So we have a message, and the message (believe it or not) can not be told completely with words alone. The message is love. God is love. God loves us. He sent Jesus to help us because He loves us. The great commission: go love everyone with the love of God. Be loved by God, and let that love overflow into the lives of those around you. If words come into the picture, fine, but if not, that's even better. People respond to love, because love speaks to their hearts. So when I say I'm an evangelical Christian, I mean that I spend my life (well, I do a poor job, but I try) loving other people. In that way, I am spreading the message of God, which is the good news, and that good news is his love manifested in Christ. People are hungry to be loved, and God's love will satisfy them. So it's time we make sure they find it. I must share this love, because not sharing it would be a crime. It would be selfish to keep the greatest gift of all time to myself. That's why I am an evangelical.

So is being an evangelical a bad thing? Well, is loving people a bad thing? You can disagree with my beliefs and still agree that if I believe what I do then I must live how I do or else I am a horribly selfish person. That's all.

"And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ,
and to love one another as he commanded us." 1 John 3:23

Bar Talk: the lottery

So I thought I might introduce a possible theme for some of my future posts, just because this particular source of inspiration has been good fuel for thought recently. My roommate and good friend bartends at the Best Western (this is not a plug for that hotel chain, and I'll refrain from commenting on its quality level... though I must say, the bartender is great). We work opposing schedules, so I've found myself frequenting her bar quiet often. After all, who can turn down free bottomless cokes with grenadine? One of the perks of my visits, aside from chatting with my roomie, is my fellow patrons. I live in the ultimate college-town, so bars are usually overcrowded, noisy establishments where you get hassled by sloppy frat boys. Not my style. And it certainly doesn't make for good conversation (who goes to a college bar to talk?). But at the BW life is different. The patrons come in all shapes and sizes, and each has his or her own story to tell, and believe me, they are all willing to tell it. The age range is generally 30-somethings to 70-somethings, and the reason for staying is usually some sort of convention/conference or a friend or family member is at the UW hospital. So, as you can tell, each person I meet comes with a unique set of baggage. And since my roommate is generous when she makes drinks, they quickly become chatty. So I've decided to record my more memorable bar talks, and I'm only sorry I hadn't started earlier because I've already forgotten some great talks.

Yesterday at the bar, I found myself in the company of one 30 something tax attorney (yikes) and a married couple in their 60s (ish). Their conversation somehow turned to gambling, and it caught my attention. They began talking about how casinos prey on the poor addicted souls who just can't help cashing in their paycheck in hopes of somehow hitting the jackpot. So, given that I had just read Sandel's book (which I wish I had kept for the sake of this post) and he had his own opinions on the matter that got me thinking about it myself. Sandel believes, and I agree, that state lotteries unfairly burden the poor and marginalized sectors of society. Rich people don't spend their savings on lottery tickets, generally, because they aren't desperate for financial stability. Also, the more education you have, the less likely (intuitively) you will be to fall prey to the mentality that the lottery really is a realistic way out of poverty. Understanding the odds isn't as simple as it seems, esp without a good education, and if you don't understand the extreme unlikelihood that you will ever hit the jackpot then you are more likely to think you really could win. From a common sense standpoint the lottery is looking pretty grim. Is the state really promoting a program that virtually takes money from the lowest earning members of society and redistributes that money to ease property taxes or fund education? Should the poor really be bearing this burden? Choice or no choice, if the state knowingly runs a lottery where the money is coming primarily from the least advantaged, it is (IMO) culpable of a pretty serious moral wrong.

So what does the literature say? Well I did some research this time (for once), and I wasn't surprised by my findings. The results varied in degree, but overall the sources say that the lottery is, in effect, a regressive income tax. The lower the income, the more burden you shoulder. The percentage of money paid to the lottery versus the percent you earn is lower as you make more money, for various reasons. Education is one reason, and so is the fact that rich people don't need to rely on lotteries to pull them out of poverty. So if it's true that the poor are funding the lottery revenues (and incidentally, so too are minorities, particularly Blacks and Hispanics, according to a Texas study, see below), then the revenues better be pretty damned important. But, of course, they're not, not really. In Wisconsin, according to an audit done on our own state lottery, the funds from the lottery in the fiscal year of 2000-01 had a return of about $67 per household on property taxes (the sole use of our lottery). Who pays property tax? Who is 67 bucks richer? Not the folks who bought the tickets, that's for sure.

Not all of the studies agreed on the extent of the harm done by lotteries. But even the studies that didn't show a huge correlation between education and lottery ticket purchase admitted that if a person had less than a full high school education, then that person's likelihood of buying lottery tickets was inversely related to the amount of years he or she actually completed. Education can even be predictive when you control for income (Miyazaki et al. 1996). Check out this excerpt from a report I found:

"Nevertheless, the fairly consistent finding of regressivity across the five states and numerous time periods suggests that the lottery as an implicit tax may need improvement from a consumer policy perspective. Indeed, it is likely in the best interests of state lottery organizations that they revise the marketing of their products in a manner that decreases regressivity in an effort to avoid regulation of their product due to tax incidence implications. For example, even though it may not prove profitable in the short term, a campaign targeted toward higher-income consumers would likely result in significant changes in a state's lottery tax incidence, thus, avoiding legislation that curbs a particular lottery organization's ability to generate long-term revenue. Alternatively, state policymakers may wish to alter lottery payout structures by decreasing the effective tax rate of lotteries, potentially resulting in a more attractive product for higher-income consumers."**

Mark Thorton, and economist in Auburn, points out (in a rather emotionally charged article) that "Rich people can gamble at much better odds in Las Vegas or over the Internet where the payback is 90% rather than the state lottery’s 50%."

The worst part is that states are increasing advertising and marketing for the games that the lower-income purchasers tend to put more money into (the instant scratch games that have more frequent but lower payouts). Studies show (ask any pysch student) that when you increase reward (or semblance of reward) but at irregular and unpredictable intervals then the person is more likely to repeat the behavior in hopes for the reward. Example, if you give a dog a treat every time he pushes a button four times, he won't push it as much as he will if he doesn't know when it's coming but it comes enough for him to know it sometimes will. I pulled that out of the AP Psych vault, and can't remember who said that, but I remember it. And even if that's wrong, the Wisconsin audit purposefully suggested that the state increase the frequency of prizes for the instant win games because it would bring in more revenues if people saw that some people did win sometimes. And those revenues have been shown to come from the lower income groups even more so than the revenues from the higher payout games.

So I don't like the lottery, not when the state is using it to redistribute income from the poor to the middle-upper income folks. It's not right, and the benefits can't justify it in my mind. Of course the couple at the bar and their conservative lawyer friend protested the lottery because it's a vice that sucks people into a downward spiral, and they may be right, actually they are probably right. But honestly, casinos or other private gambling get-ups don't bother me as much as state run scams. The state should not be taking advantage of people, and it certainly shouldn't use other people's ignorance or financial insecurity to raise funds that just go to the middle and upper class. Interestingly, the lawyer dude told me that although we all agreed that the lottery is bad, he could tell that I am "very liberal" based on my comments about it. I was sort of offended. Why should caring about the poor be limited to liberals? I also hate being labeled, because it traps you into a whole slew of stereotypes. I am not a liberal, and I am not a conservative. But I'm not a centrist either. So take that.

More bar talk to come.


Sources:

Wisconsin Lottery Audit 2002

The income redistribution effects of Texas state lottery games Source: Public finance review [1091-1421] Price yr:2000 vol:28 iss:1 pg:82

**The tax incidence of lotteries: Evidence from five states Ann Hansen, Anthony D Miyazaki, David E Sprott. The Journal of Consumer Affairs. Madison: Winter 2000. Vol.34, Iss. 2; pg. 182, 22 pgs

Thoughtcrime: 1984

As you may have guessed from the title, this post is about Orwell's book, 1984. I've just crossed it off my summer reading list, which consists of books that I feel like I should have already read but I haven't yet. Overall impression: I loved it. It really lives up to its legacy as a wonderful, thought provoking, and utterly disturbing piece of literature. It's not one I would read again, precisely because it was entirely to creepy for me, though I guess that's a big part of its charm as well. I feel like it did a good job of grounding my Utopian-like fantasies about what sort of society is actually achievable. Though, to be fair, I plan on reading More's Utopia next for the sake of balance. Seriously though, 1984 is a masterpiece, and I am ill-qualified to say much about it here, though I will venture to share the parts that impressed me the most.

Doublethink: "to know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which canceled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them..."

When this concept is first introduced, I dismissed it. No one could actually, would actually, think that way. Right? To my philosophy trained mind, the worst heresy you can commit is to purposefully ignore logic. But as the book progressed, it occurred to me that its not only the Party members in 1984 who do this sort of thing. We are just as guilty. Honestly, there must be dozens of times when I've knowingly believed two contradictory things and merely refused to reconcile them, all the while telling myself that they are not mutually exclusive. Some out there may think my belief that God and science aren't mutually exclusive would fall under this category, but that's not what I'm think of here (obviously). Consider this two thoughts: 1) I give my life over to God and 2) I must act in my own interest. Both daily thoughts, both require a certain set of actions, both are mutually exclusive. It's entirely too easy to believe them both (at whatever level of consciousness) and never allow yourself to consider that you can't have both. The whole, no one can serve two masters command, is never taken seriously is it? The same sort of thing happens to everyone (albeit with different subjects). So that's a bit frightening. I am willfully illogical on a daily basis. Wonderful.

"Orthodoxy means not thinking --not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness."

Like in the Golden Compass, its a terrible waste when people go through life unconsciousness. We don't even know we do it, but we do. Get up, go to class, try to stay awake, eat, read, watch tv, go to bed, repeat. Not hard to go through the motions. What about stopping to think about why we do what we do, and think about what we should actually be doing, instead of just absently doing it??

"The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two makes four?...If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable --what then?"

1984 seemed to come down pretty hard on idealism, as it should. I know its frustrating to not be able to prove that the computer I am typing on exists in a reality outside of my senses, but let's be serious. I know that makes me a bad philosopher, but I can't believe it. I suppose it could be true, even if what I believe about God is right it could be true, but really? I used to think in class that someone should have punched Berkeley in the face and then asked if he thought her fist was a construction of his sensory experience. But honestly, the book is more condemning of our attempts to water down epistemology. Truth has become so subjective these days, that its not far from the truth promoted in the book. Truth is what we make it, says the party leaders. The past, well that only exists in our memories and records, so again we make that what we want as well. There's even a part where O'Brien (the Kurtz of 1984) convinces the protagonist that if he believes he is levitating, and if the protagonist believes he is levitating, then he is levitating. It's not that idealism is bad, per se, but you see how it can be dangerous. If reality is only what exists in our consciousness, and if the government controls our consciousness, well you understand.

"But if the object was not to stay alive but to stay human, what difference did it ultimately make? They could not alter your feelings; for that matter you could not alter them yourself, even if you wanted to. They could lay bare in the utmost detail everything that you had done or said or thought; but the inner heart, whose workings were mysterious even to yourself, remained impregnable."

Only you can't protect even that, which is precisely why the book creeps me out. If society can break you, emotionally, then you've lost the only true blessing we were ever given. If God wanted mindless zombies, He would have created them. But what if we turn each other into them?? Honestly, we're not far away from that...

"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power..."

And, Machiavelli has nothing on these guys. At least they're honest? Scary, but I don't think these power-mongers are very different from their real life counterparts...

So what did I learn? Think, think, think. Your humanity depends on it. Your integrity depends on it. Society depends on it. Passively accept nothing, guard your heart, and don't be quick to trust human establishments, of any kind. That's all for now. I promise to have a non-about-a-book-I-just-read post soon...really...

Lessons from the Golden Compass

I just finished reading Philip Pullman's Dark Materials Trilogy (The Golden Compass, The Subtle Knife, and The Amber Spyglass). I had previously read the Golden Compass back in the 8th grade, and I liked it... but I wasn't much of a fantasy/sci-fi fan at the time. When I started the 2nd book, I just couldn't handle it because it was too out-there for me. It wasn't until my last few years of high school that I discovered my interest in these sorts of novels. A friend of mine introduced me to the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and I loved it. Then I went out and got the Chronicles of Narnia and read those too (the first book, of which, I had started to read back in 5th grade and didn't like at all... too weird for me... I think I must have been a really boring kid or something, I probably still am). Again, I loved them. Now that I've finished Pullman's books, I can see the similarities between them all. Oxford must be a very inspiring place because it's the home of some wonderful authors. And the great thing about reading all of these books at an older age is that I was able to appreciate the literature in all of it's philosophical (and often theological) glory. Lewis and Tolkien give us stories that evoke the age old struggle of good versus evil, and they make God's role in our world come alive in a whole new way. Pullman, interestingly, takes this same struggle from a whole new perspective. Though Pullman is an atheist, and his story clearly shows this, his books are just as important for Christian readers as those of Lewis and Tolkien. I'm fairly certain that his trilogy wouldn't be allowed in the libraries of many Christian schools, but I'm also fairly certain that shying away from his message would be a mistake.

(I'm trying to write this so as not to spoil it for those who haven't read it yet, but there are somethings I have to include in order to explain why his books were important... so you've been warned.)

Pullman's books focus on the question of consciousness. In the books, consciousness is vital to the survival of the world as we know it, and it's not just about being aware of the world, but it's about being thoughtful, creative, inquisitive, logical, etc. The great tragedy is not physical death, but the death of the mind. Indifference and mindlessness are the great enemies. Loss of one's consciousness is pretty much equivalent to the loss of one's soul (which for some characters in his books, is personified in the form of a daemon --there's actually a really neat connection about how growing up is the time when you settle on your personality, and that's a good thing, unlike in many other books where growing up --loosing innocence-- is bad). The church, interestingly, is afraid of consciousness (real/original/creative thought), and they pretty much associate it with sin. At first, I was kind of offended that the church was the enemy in this sense, but then I realised that Pullman was making a valid point. How often has the church in its history tried to silence dissent? Creativity? Discovery? Not always, of course, but certainly too much. Religious folks of all stripes ought to embrace and utilize their minds! Our reason, our creativity, our imagination, everything -- they are all wonderful gifts from God. Do you think He blessed us with these amazing abilities for us to be afraid of them? Of course not. In fact, I strongly believe that He gave us these specific abilities to be able to find him on our own. He gave us the tools, he gave us the choice, and He left it up to us (with some nudging along the way). Like Milton said, "Sufficient to have stood, free to fall..."

But gifts of the intellect do come at a price. An indifferent individual may not be able to do much good, but they certainly don't do much harm. They just don't do anything, really. On the other hand, someone who is intelligent, clever, and imaginative is in a different boat. She can do enormous good, but she can also do enormous harm. The bigger they are, the harder they fall (couldn't help myself, sorry). After all, what separates Lincoln from Hitler? It's not determination. It's not leadership ability or intelligence (if that was a bad comparison, replace it with a better one). The difference is in the motive; it's in the heart. God gifted both of these individuals, but they had to choose how to use their gifts. So the Church is afraid of what happens when we use our minds for evil, I understand that. But stifling thought prevents the enormous good that can be achieved by cultivating our gifts. So, Christians take heed. Pullman's worry should be ours as well...

Lesson two: the kingdom. What do you usually hear (well-meaning) Christians say about the kingdom of God?? If I can just make it through this life, I'll have a hell'va time when I get to heaven. If I can just hang on, I'll find peace when I die. I'll be rewarded, as soon as I leave this world. What kind of life does this sort of attitude lead to? If you are merely surviving this life, you aren't doing much to improve your (or more importantly, other people's) lot in the present. In other words, you kind of lack a big motivation to make the world a better place. But the Lord's kingdom isn't some far off paradise. It's here. It's now. One of the big lessons I pulled away from Pullman was his insistence that we must start living in the kingdom (republic, for him, more on that below) today. As a matter of fact, I recently heard a sermon about this at church. It was about how the kingdom of God is alive and well in our hearts and in this world, and it is our job to bring this kingdom to everyone else. In God's kingdom, love reigns supreme, and so we should daily live to love, to bring God's kingdom to the world. Don't believe me? Jesus said it too: "Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, 'The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within (or among) you'" (Luke 17:20-21). I really believe this is the most important lesson for any Christian who reads Pullman. We must start living in the kingdom now! Decide for yourself what this will mean for you in a practical, day-to-day sense. It means different things for everyone. Everyone has a different role in the kingdom, and everyone has a duty to get started right away. Don't know what that means for you? Ask. Seek. Knock. You'll find the answer, as long as you're listening.

Of course there were a few things in Pullman's books that I didn't agree with. The main principle I really disagreed with was the Republic of Heaven. I'll try not to give to much away, but in essence the books show how every conscious being (spirit or physical) is equal. That entails that humans are in no way inferior to God (nor could they be, really, given who God really is in the books... but that's for you to find out when you read it). And I see the appeal of this line of thought. Of course, why should we be lower than Him? Don't we deserve to be on his level? Well, that's kind of how humans have gotten off track with God from the start. Sin isn't about sex and lies (contrary to what you'll often hear Christians getting worked up about today). It's about thinking of yourself first, before God, before anyone, and asserting your own interests. Pride? Isn't that really just a will that wants to be it's own God? In my heart, equality with God is not something I desire (well, I guess I probably do sometimes). That, after all, is our whole problem. We want to be God. We are gods, in our own minds. We want to be superior, to be above him, to be the rulers of our lives. Well, if God really did create us, then our lives are gifts. We are entitled to nothing, but we are blessed with everything. We ought to take the attitude of Jesus when he came down to dwell with us: "Christ Jesus, who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant" (Philippians 2: 5-7).

Another thing I was disappointed with was that the second two books don't really live up to the first one. The first one was by far my favorite, the second was okay, and the third I really only read to see what would happen. His setup is superb, but the follow through is wanting. It's hard to explain why, but I got the feeling that his wrap up lacked the subtlety and sophistication of the story he began. The ending wasn't quite as thrilling as the "prophecies" foretold, so I guess that must be it. It just seemed too easy, and I just didn't buy it. But perhaps, that just shows that I couldn't accept the whole last half of the epic tale on a faith level, who knows. Even if the last half wasn't so "out-there" I think I would have still been disappointed with the ending. That didn't happen for me when I read Tolkien, but it did somewhat with Lewis. Tolkien got better as the story progressed, and I think I enjoyed Lewis's middle novels better than the first and last ones. But if you disagree, feel free to tell me so.

So go read the books (at least the first one). And do it quickly, because Hollywood is about to bastardize yet another wonderful children's series by again during it into a major blockbuster. Quick tangent: I have a hard time when these sorts of books get made into movies. They are of the variety they are precisely because they are fuel for the imagination. But when movies come out, children go and see the movie first, and then half the fun of reading the books is gone. It's like taking a dagger to the imaginations of a whole generation. Of course, it's sometimes neat to watch the movie after the fact, but I'd give up that pleasure (and sometimes its not, because often they ruin it anyway) if that meant children would be able to read the book and fully exercise their imaginative juices. If you are curious, though, now that I've mentioned it, you can check out more info here. Some big stars will be in it. But don't look at the site if you haven't read the books yet.

**I just found this out about the upcoming film:

Fans of the Philip Pullman novel His Dark Materials have expressed outrage over news that director-screenwriter Chris Weitz (American Pie) has removed references to God and the Catholic church in the movie. Weitz told a website set up by fans of the novel, bridgetothestars.net, that New Line Cinema, the company producing the film, has "expressed worry about the possibility of perceived anti-religiosity." He said that the studio had told him that if the references remained, the project would become "unviable financially." He remarked that he had discussed the matter with Pullman, who had told him that the role of the Authority (God) in his book, could be transformed into "any arbitrary establishment that curtails the freedom of the individual." The religious villains in the film, he said, "may appear in more subtle guises." He added: "you will probably not hear of the 'Church.'" One fan posted a message on the website calling the changes a "blatant cop-out to the Bible Belt of America."

Hollywood studio New Line have banned proposed references to God and the church from new film His Dark Materials. Philip Pullman's screenplay portrays the church as an institution which is experimenting on its congregation in a effort to remove original sin. But the strong religious material terrified New Line bosses, and director Chris Weitz agrees changes were necessary for the scripts big screen incarnation. He says, "They have expressed worry about the possibility of perceived anti-religiosity. "All my best efforts will be directed towards keeping the film as liberating and iconoclastic an experience as I can. But there may be some modification of terms. "I have no desire to change the nature or intentions of the villains of the piece, but they may appear in more subtle guises."

I don't know how I feel about that. But I suppose the message of the books is universal enough that any institution that suppresses original thought could be the 'enemy.' I wouldn't be surprised if the more die-hard Pullman fans get really mad.