When is an artist an artist?

I'm going to stray from my usual political rantings here for some quiet reflection on the arts. Seriously.

The wife and I were out recently with some friends of ours, an extremely talented photographer and his lovely and talented girlfriend. We, being new and aspiring photographers, enjoyed the conversation, which invariably turned to the business of photography.

The comment was raised that one of the problems with the photography industry is that anyone can buy a nice camera and say that they're a photographer. This causes an over-saturation of photographers in the market. "Fake" photographers undercut prices of highly trained photographers. Then the client in your office is saying they don't understand WHY in the world YOUR photography costs so much when so-and-so says he'll do it for $60 bucks.

I've thought a lot about that comment since then, because I have very mixed feelings about it. First off, it's definitely true. There's an over-saturation of crap photographers. And there are a whole lot of people that spend some money on a camera and think that they're creating art. And it's really easy to get bitter about that. Especially when you see clients walk out your door and hire a "crap photographer" over you.

But then you have to ask yourself, "Well, who defines what art is? Maybe the client actually LIKES their photography."

And on top of that, "Well, isn't that exactly how I started out? Wasn't I just a guy with a camera once? Who got to decide when I was good enough to be 'pro'?"

And on top of that even, "Why do I get to pass judgment on these photographers? Isn't there always some amazingly talented photographer out there who is better than me, who could say that I'M not really an artist? That I'm just an amateur hack clogging up the industry?"


It's an interesting dilemma. I've had the same questions. What is the difference between your uncle taking a snapshot of your birthday party and the photos I take? Who decides which is art? There are photojournalists who argue that the raw, real moment is the art. There are photoshoppers who say it's not art unless you've spent 13 hours in post production. Who's to say they're not both right?

I've always said this about music: It doesn't matter how much training you have, or how technically proficient you are - there's a whole separate quality that makes it art. Which is why I can't stand Steve Vai (who is a wonderfully talented guitarist), and I love Damien Rice (who is a moderately talented guitarist at best.) It's not a question of skill or technique - those things are cold, lifeless tools. It's a question of art.

But art is entirely subjective. What one person adores, another could find contrived, boring, lifeless, dull, cheesy, or any number of adjectives. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as they say.


Another good friend of mine said something like this (this is a gross paraphrase): "It's a fallacy that 'there's not enough to go around.' Go out and do what you love and you will succeed."

I think that, in the arts in general, it doesn't help us to point to the newbs who are just starting out and learning and enjoying their new passion and blame them for destroying the industry (even if there is some truth to it.) We should help them along their journey, because no matter how good they get, they will never be us. They will never have our eyes. Our brains. Their art will always be different. As Victor Wooten said about bass playing, "You could put a newborn baby on the instrument and they'll be able to get sounds I can't produce."



The real problem is with the consumer! They're the ones who keep hiring these fools. Okay, I'm joking. But at the same time, I'm not.

A client who has no photographic training (or musical training) may not be able to see the minute differences in lighting, post production, depth of field, exposure, etc. - the same way that the general listener doesn't understand the way a dominant 7 chord resolves down to the tonic in such a beautifully elegant way.

They just know what they like. They know when they see a picture and it affects them emotionally. They don't know why, and they don't care. They only care about the impact on them.


Whew. My big conclusion (after reading The Fountainhead a few years back) is that as an artist, you make art. Most people might not like your work - they don't matter. There may be thousands of other people doing it differently - they don't matter. What matters is you, and your art. You are the creator.

Some people will like what you do, and those people will find you.

Religion in a Science Class?

How is science different from religion? More to my point: Why shouldn't religion be taught in science classes?

My stance is that they are completely different processes. And while evidence of one may affect belief in the other - they should not be taught in the same arena.

Here's why. Science is based on the Scientific Method. For those who don't remember 7th grade science class, it is as follows:

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

It is a gradual, truth gathering process. Scientists across the globe are observing the world, finding things we don't understand, forming hypotheses about these subjects, testing their hypotheses, and then forming new hypotheses based on the information they gained.

The wonderful thing about science is that it takes into account the possibility (or probability, rather) that humans will get things dead wrong, probably over and over. And that is why for a scientific theory to stand, it must be able to be repeated. Scientists around the world try to recreate the experiment over and over again. If the experiment can ever be proven to be false - the whole theory is disproved and scientists go back to the data that they still believe to be true and start again.

Thus, with empirical data we as humans test what we know to be true to be certain that it is true, and then slowly branch out in every possible direction finding new and exciting things that we can show to be true.


Religion is a different animal. It is based on faith. There is no way to prove a religious belief. A religious experience can not be recreated in a laboratory to be tested for consistency.

Now, this is not to say that a religious experience or belief is NOT true - simply that it can not be proven to be so.


Now some would say, "Well, you can't DISPROVE x" (x being God or Zeus or Thor or any other religious belief). Well, this is true. You can't. You also can't disprove Santa Claus, but you probably don't believe in him. Or Zeus or Thor. But if you are a person of faith, you choose one out of the thousands of gods that have been believed in throughout history, and you have faith in that one.

Why? It's a matter of faith.

You still use evidence, just like a scientist. But your evidence is more intangible and unprovable. It's more like, "This is what my parents believed, and I trust them." Or "I felt God inside me." Or "I see the works of God."

Or it could be more of a logical argument. Like, "Look at the beautiful world around us. Where could all this have come from if there wasn't a God?"

Whatever the evidence is, it is evidence, just like a scientist would use. The difference is that it's not empirical evidence - and so, it can not be tested, repeated, or proven.


So, what's the point I'm coming to? Am I saying that religious belief is invalid? No. Am I saying that science is invalid? No.

What I'm saying is that they're not on the same playing field.

Science is based on slowly finding what we can and can't prove and testing everything, so that we can slowly grow our base of knowledge of the world around us.

Religion is based on faith, and what we believe about the things that we can't prove. Where do we go when we die? Where did things come from? These are questions that we all have to answer, and we answer them with philosophy and religious beliefs.

Science can shed light on these questions (Some believe that evolution is a huge key to understanding where we come from, for example.) But it is tied to what is testable and provable. It doesn't postulate about the possibility of things that are unprovable.


So, my point is this. Religion should not be involved in any way with the world of science. It doesn't have a home there. If you want your children to believe that God created the world, then share your beliefs with them at home or take them to church. Do not expect your science teacher to do it for you at school.

Separation of Church and State revisited

As my faithful readers will know, I covered the Separation of Church and State in a three part series awhile back (which started.... here: http://angryhooton.blogspot.com/2010/09/separation-of-church-and-state-pt-1-why.html)

So, you may be asking yourself, "Why would Mr. Angry Hooton revisit the subject? I thought he covered it rather charmingly."

Why, thank you.

But I revisit the subject because of this woman - Christine O'Donnell. Tea Party favorite, republican nominee for senator from Delaware. And this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miwSljJAzqg#t=2m49s

Watch the video. You'll see where I'm going with this.


Where does our idea of The Separation of Church and State come from? Is it in the constitution?

Not in those terms, as Ms. O'Donnell thinks she is cleverly pointing out.

It's based off of the First Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."


It's not stated that "Church and state shall be separate" but when it says that congress cannot pass a law establishing any religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion - the message is pretty clear. The government should keep its hands off of religion.

And as Mr. Coons pointed out - decisional law by the supreme court is the other way we clarify what the constitution means in our ever changing society. And throughout the years, the supreme court has ruled (thus clarifying this amendment) that church and state should be separate.


Let me be more clear, in terms of what these two candidates are saying. Ms. O'Donnell things that Intelligent Design should be taught in public schools along with established and widely respected, widely tested scientific theory. Intelligent Design - as Mr. Coons points out - is a religious theory, not a scientific one. And thus, under the first amendment, should not be taught in any government run public school. It should be left for churches or private schools to teach.

Why? Because teaching ANY religious belief (outside of an objective anthropological or historical view, such as a world religions class) is prohibiting the free exercise of religion to any children of differing beliefs.

For example, if you are a Christian and you want your children to be free to be Christians in schools, you would be very upset if they were taught, as scientific fact, that the Great White Spirit created the world? Or that it's possible that we're all alien souls deposited into volcanoes? Yes, you would be upset. Why? Because it affects your child's ability to believe his or her own religious beliefs, and it affects your ability as a parent to train your child up in the belief system you choose.

It should not be any different simply because it is the majority belief. We should view every issue like this as if the shoe were on the other foot. If they were teaching religious beliefs that were different from yours in a SCIENCE class, how would you feel?

This is why we have the separation of church and state, and once again, this is why it is good for all of us. It allows us to be free to have our own beliefs, regardless of what they are, regardless of who the current majority is, or what party is in office. We do NOT want the government pushing any religious beliefs in schools - because it will negatively affect our personal freedom to hold such beliefs.


Next post: The difference between science and religion: Why science needs evidence.

Hitler-comparison-ophobia

Godwin's law states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." In other words, Godwin put forth the sarcastic observation that, given enough time, all discussions—regardless of topic or scope—inevitably end up being about Hitler and the Nazis. -Wikipedia

I'm going to try to tread lightly on here, because I already know that some of my friends are going to disagree with me on this one. But try to keep an open mind to the point I'll be trying to make, please.


In a recent online discussion, I compared the actions of a certain political party to those of Hitler - as a joke. Now, true, this may have been in poor taste. I'm not defending myself for that one. However, one of the responses read:

"Until [insert compared group here] kills 12 million people, I'm not comfortable with anyone comparing anyone else with Hitler."

And that is the inspiration for this post.


I think that there are times where it IS appropriate to compare the actions of people with the actions of Hitler. Why? Because if we don't, then we will never see actual correlations until they're too late. It's true that a group may not yet have killed 12 million people. But their current line of action may be dangerous for society, in the same way that it was when Hitler did it. And thus, the correlation should be drawn. It has been said that if we don't study history, then history is doomed to repeat itself. Well, we need to do more than just study history - we need to be bold enough to point out when history is repeating itself. We do this by drawing correlations.

Let me give a few examples to illustrate my point.

Hitler's biggest strategy for growing nationalism within his citizens was the use of faceless scapegoats. The German economy was in shambles, and who's fault was it? Why, the Jews, of course! It's been proven time and again that if you make people feel like they're being attacked from the outside - be it Jews, illegal immigrants, terrorists, communists, witches, etc. - then the people will band together (under a leader who makes them feel safe) to fight this faceless enemy. It's happened throughout history.

It happens over and over in fiction, too.

In 1984, the country was constantly at war. The war didn't really matter. The enemy kept changing and no one noticed. But the state of war was important. Because they had an enemy to fight, even though no one was sure who it was. It kept the citizens constantly loyal to their country, and constantly on guard against anyone who might subvert the country -- VERY useful for the ruling class.

In Star Wars Episode 3, too. You build a faceless enemy, and the people unite under your rule. Why? Because you're going to make everything all right. You're going to fight the faceless enemy. All you need is their support.

If you depict a Jew as a person, just like any other person, just trying to survive, provide for their family, love their wife, teach their children, work, sleep, eat, pray - then you can't motivate people to hate them, and you can't motivate people to rally behind you to fight them, and you can't gain power by using their fear. You must make them a faceless, nonhuman force. And this is the rhetoric of which I speak.


Now, we come to my point. By looking at Hitler's example of using the faceless scapegoat to gain political power, we should be able to learn from it. We should be able to see when other politicians are trying to create a faceless enemy. Whether it's the "us versus them, good versus evil" mentality of our "war on terror," or whether it's the idea that illegal immigrants are stealing our jobs or living on welfare that we've paid for - politicians use this rhetoric today. And we should be able to see the correlation.

Now, when I say that a politician rallying support against illegal immigrants by making them seem like they're not real people - am I saying that that politician is as evil as Hitler? No. Am I saying that he is as detrimental to society as Hitler? No. All I'm saying is that they're using the same rhetoric, and that we should be aware of it, so that we don't fall for it, the same way that people in Germany did, pre-WWII.


There could be other examples, that's not the point. The point is that there are times when correlations can correctly be drawn, and I see nothing wrong with it.


The problem is that most times the correlations are not correctly drawn. Let me give one example.

I've had a few discussions about atheism. And I've read the argument, "Well, Hitler and Stalin were atheists, and look what they did. Therefore, atheists must be immoral and evil." The problem with this correlation is that it ignores the fact that Hitler's atheism was not the cause of his actions. I believe he did what he did in a quest for political power, which he succeeded in gaining - right until the very end as the war was lost. Blaming Hitler's actions on atheism is like blaming everything George Bush did on the fact that he's a Christian. We never hear that claim, though, do we?


My point is this. Not all correlations to Hitler should be looked at with scorn. If we're afraid to draw these correlations, then we can miss out on many things we can learn from the past. If the correlation is good, we should learn from it. If the correlation doesn't pass the scrutiny of logic, then it should be exposed and discarded.

The Separation of Church and State Pt 3 (how we should treat people)

So, our nation was not founded as a Christian nation. And if I've done my job correctly, then you can see why these protections are not an attack on your religion, but exist for the good of all religions and all people.

So, with this knowledge, how does this affect the way you treat other people -- especially the way you treat people who are different from you, or hold differing beliefs?

Well, remember what I said about thinking about what the world would be like if the shoe were on the other foot? Think about that, always. The next time you think, "Well, yeah, the country would be a better place if homosexuals couldn't marry," then ask yourself, "Well, how would I feel if they were the majority, and they told me that I couldn't marry the person that I love?"

If you think, "Maybe they should teach Creationism in science classes, alongside purely scientific theories." Then stop yourself for a moment and ask, "Well, what if they taught every religion's creation story as a scientific theory? What if they taught Greek Mythology as fact, instead of leaving that up to me, the parent? How would I feel about that? Would that blur the lines between science and faith? And would that be good for science OR faith?"


There are many examples of such questions - where religion steps into the public realm. And you should always ask yourself, how would this feel if I were the minority? How would I feel if someone were imposing their beliefs on me, and trying to force me to live or believe like they do? How would I feel if I couldn't pursue my most basic desires (like the desire to marry the person I love) because I have a differing religious opinion from the "norm" or the majority?

It would feel awful.

So, the lesson at the end of the day is: Don't do that to people. Don't put people in a position where you're imposing your beliefs on people.

Let people be free, like you like to be free.

The Separation of Church and State Pt 2 (why it's good we're not a Christian nation)

Now many Christians see the "Separation of Church and State" as an attack on Christianity itself. And there have been a great many crusades to "take our country back," "get God back in our schools," etc. The wording is different, but the sentiment is the same. "This is a Christian nation. If we don't run it as a Christian nation, then God will leave us and go somewhere else."

I want to talk for a minute about why the separation of church and state is not an attack on Christianity (or any religion), but rather a safeguard FOR Christianity.


One of my favorite things to do when thinking about politics is to think about what things would be like if "the shoe were on the other foot." For Christianity, I take this to mean, "What would the country look like if Christianity were not the majority."

With the separation of church and state, it wouldn't look much different.

Without the separation of church and state, it would be dire news for many religions.

Let's think this through. Many Christians think the world would be a better place if the 10 commandments were displayed in government buildings. If the book of Genesis were taught in science classrooms. If Children were lead in prayer in school. If the bible were followed in lawmaking (leading to the outlawing of gay marriage, for example.)

But, if this were the norm - if the majority religion were able to make laws and educate our children in their religion in public schools - then what would happen if a different religion became the majority?

How would you feel if writings of the Qur'an were posted in public buildings? What if laws of the Qur'an were public laws. What if women, by law, had to wear burkas covering from head to toe? What if women couldn't leave the house without a male relative?

Or what if it wasn't Islam? What if Jewish orthodox law prevailed? What if we couldn't work on the Sabbath? Or we couldn't eat food that wasn't kosher?


As you're reading some of these randomly chosen examples, you're probably thinking, "Well, that's not American. We're free! I like being able to wear what I want, do what I want, eat what I want. I like that women are treated as equals in my country." Etc., etc., etc.

This is why we need to preserve the separation of church and state. Because it protects ALL of our freedom. It protects the Christian's freedom as well as the Muslim's or the Jew's or the Buddhist's or the atheist's.

My point is that you wouldn't like having your religious freedom taken away. You wouldn't like being forced to practice someone else's religion. So, why do you think it's right to do that to someone else?


So, hopefully you get my point about why religious freedom is valuable to our society. Stay tuned for my next post on how this should affect how we treat other people.

The Separation of Church and State Pt 1 (why we're not a Christian nation)

In discussions with various people, in interviews I've seen, in various bits of political commentary, I have heard murmurings that I've found troubling - and you should, too. Things like:

"We need to get back to being a Christian nation"
"We don't need a separation of church and state"
"It says 'One nation under God' on our money, and if you don't like it, you can get out."
"It's 'one nation under God,' not 'one nation under Allah.'"

I think you get the picture. And if you've thought this through, you're already shocked like I was. If you're on the side that thinks we are a Christian nation, please lend me an objective mind for a few moments.


Is this nation a "Christian nation?"
This nation was founded with the ideal of freedom. And among those many glorious freedoms guaranteed by the constitution is included the freedom of religion. That states that you, like everyone in this country, are free to practice whatever religion or lack thereof that you see fit. It is left up to you, the individual, and is not to be determined by the government, or even the majority.

This was written into the constitution, in the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Does this sound different from us being a "Christian" nation? Yes. That's because we're not a Christian nation.

But weren't the founding fathers all Christians?
Nope. In fact, I could point out many quotations from founding fathers that have quite scathing reviews of Christianity. For example:

"Lighthouses are more useful than churches" Benjamin Franklin

"This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in
it" John Adams

"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man" Thomas
Jefferson

Do I need to continue? I can.

In fact, Jefferson wrote a book called "The life and moral teachings of Jesus of Nazareth" that removed all the miracles and claims of divinity from the the gospels - things that he saw as unnecessary - and left just the moral teachings.

Clearly, these men were not all Christians. Clearly, by what they included in the constitution, they did not mean this nation to be a "Christian nation," but one where people were free to believe whatever they liked. If you'd like to further debate this, please leave your comment below. In my next posts I will discuss:

2) Why it's good for you that we have the separation of church and state
3) How this knowledge affects how we should treat each other.

Who can tell me what is wrong with this commercial?

http://www.redlasso.com/ClipPlayer.aspx?id=a02b5c79-e99f-4a1e-903f-0ab45b1937db

The Ears.

Rough approximation of quotes from the TV series Bones:

Hodgins: I just think, maybe if I scream loud enough someone will listen.
Angela: Well, you need to be careful that people don't go deaf.


Talking about religion and politics is dangerous. It's polarizing. It tends to cause people to pick sides, to divide. And when that happens, relationships can be broken down.

It becomes too easy to oversimplify people. To give them labels. Rather than try to understand a person and have real meaningful conversations with them, we write them off as "Liberal" or "Conservative." Or we define them by their religious beliefs. This tends to happen with the "War on Terror." We see America as a Christian nation and see all of Islam as our enemy, even though this is clearly not the case.

Each person in the world is a complex and deep well of experience, knowledge, and belief. To pick a single belief to define a person is ludicrous. It's like picking out a single sentence to define the writings of Shakespeare.

But it happens every day. If someone admits, "I believe that the government should do this or that," they run the risk of alienating their friend who holds the opposite view. If someone admits, "Well, I don't believe in this religion, I believe in this one," they can break ties with family members and friends. Even well meaning friends will spend the rest of their conversations trying to save his or her soul, rather than trying to be a friend.

So, it's dangerous to talk about. We try to keep it a secret, so that people don't have a reason to attack our beliefs, or dissolve friendships based on our differences.


But, if we can't talk about these things, what are we to talk about? Our religious beliefs define why we think we're here, what our purpose is. They define what our sense of right and wrong is, and where our priorities lie. Our political beliefs define how we take that sense of ethics and put it into practice. It's our only way as a people to work together to build a better world.

If we want to have real, meaningful conversations with people, I believe we need to talk about these things. But, how do we do it without alienating ourselves, or pushing people away? How do we do it in a way that builds community, rather than dividing people and building walls?

Well, we could start by not preaching at each other. We always need to listen more than we speak. And approach every debate you enter with the question "What if I'm wrong? Is this person sharing something I hadn't thought of?" rather than with the bold, prideful sense that you are infallible.

We could not use hatespeech and definitive terms. "Liberals hate America" is not constructive, Rush. It doesn't breed empathy for each other, it doesn't build community.

With all of our beliefs and knowledge and experience, none of us have it all figured out. None of us have the full picture. We only gain the full picture by talking to other people, because other people have different experiences and knowledge to share with us.

I can't tell you how many times I've come up with theories of how the world should work, only to have someone say, "Well, have you thought about this?" And it shapes my beliefs. That's how beliefs work.

I can't wait to see how I see the world in 20 years. But for now, I'll try to keep my ears and my mind open.

The iron hammer of the law, or compassion for a sick woman?

http://www.wrcbtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=12673455

Ok, read this story, see what you think.

This woman, 4 days after her wedding, starts having a stroke. Her new husband takes her to the emergency room. On the way, there are two red lights, which he treats like stop signs. He stops, makes sure no one is coming, and then proceeds while the light is still red. A cop sees this, follows them to the ER, and then harasses them. He blocks their entry to the ER (the man is carrying his sick wife), and when they finally do get inside the officer tries to follow them into her hospital room. The husband is eventually arrested, on charges such as evading arrest.


So, here's my problem. At what point does the law need to take a backseat to what is right and moral for a specific situation? He wasn't behaving recklessly. I mean, he stopped at the stop light. No one was coming - at least he didn't hit anyone else. And he did it to save a possibly dying woman's life. Sure, perhaps he did break the law. But who of us wouldn't have done the same thing?

What sickens me is that this cop had no empathy for what was happening. Taking your dying wife into a hospital is not "evading arrest." If you want to give him a ticket, go ahead, but at least let him take his wife inside the hospital first.

What do you think? A cop is supposed to "protect and serve." Is upholding a traffic law to protect the public more important than protecting a woman who may be having a stroke? Where do we draw the line?

It'll give you cancer, but it sure does keep them bugs off the berries

I've often thought that big businesses tend to put their profit-motive ahead of the individual consumer's well being. So, seeing another example of that isn't surprising. What is alarming to me is seeing how deeply the business world has the government in its pocket.

Check out this story I just read from NPR:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127910253&sc=fb&cc=fp

(If you don't want to read it, I'll summarize. They're replacing an old pesticide, because it was damaging the ozone layer. The one they're replacing it with is a known carcinogen and neurotoxin! Awesome, right? But the real rub is the debate about "safe levels" of this very unsafe product, which scientists said would be .8 parts per billion for workers with protective gear. The government, after receiving this finding, instead placed the regulation at 96 parts per billion - over a hundred times higher than scientists recommend.)

Now, my question is, why would the government ignore the work of the scientists that they commissioned and place the bar where they did? The only explanation is pressure from the pesticide business. I can't imagine consumers lobbying for there to be more neurotoxins in their strawberries.

It's scary. The reason I've argued like I have in defense of "big government" is on the basis that we need government to protect us from unscrupulous corporations. But when government and corporations are shown to be in cahoots, what protection is left for the individual? Do we need to start having someone in Washington lobbying for us? I thought that's why we elected people!

Fearmongering and Hatespeech (or, the Big Bad Wolf)

From the time we're little children, the stories we're told clearly illustrate concepts of good vs. evil. There's a clear good guy that we're supposed to identify with, and a bad guy, for which we have a cocktail of hate, fear, and disgust. Look at the story of the three little piggys, little red riding hood - they both have the big bad wolf. That personification of our fear and hate.

From an anthropological standpoint, it totally makes sense. As small children, it's very valuable to our survival to know what things are dangerous and we should fear. If the story involved the "friendly wolf who just wanted a meal to feed his starving family," then maybe we'd be trying to give it food scraps instead of running for shelter. We need to learn very early on what we should fear, and what we should stay away from - because if we don't, we'll die.

But, it becomes dangerous when we continue this behaviour into adulthood. The big bad wolf is dangerous, but it is also a friendly animal trying to feed its family. It's not malicious, it's just trying to survive, just like us. As adults, we can analyze it's methods and intentions and treat it accordingly. We still respect it's power, but we don't hate it.

If we hated it, we would hunt it to extinction. With a modicum of empathy, we can learn to coexist.

Now, let's carry this thought into our relationships with other people and cultures. People use fear and hatred to justify war and discrimination. Replace the big bad wolf with communists, Muslims, blacks, homosexuals, etc., and we can see how society tells the story - and how that story changes over time.

The truth is, we need to feel hatred and fear towards a group to justify going to war with them, to ourselves. If we start looking at people in Afghanistan as people who are just trying to survive, who are afraid of us, they feel suffocated by our expanding global grasp - then you start understanding, rather than hating. It's true there are terrorist groups, but they exert their power for a reason - because they're afraid of us, or feel powerless and need to exercise that power. Because they see US as the big bad wolf. If we can understand their motives, since they are people just like us, then we can treat the causes of their anger rather than vilifying. Because when we view them as the big bad wolf, it's really only a way to murder them with a clear conscience. Which gives them a reason to murder us with a clear conscience. Which gives us a reason to.....

Without empathy, we will always be susceptible to war.

The economic conscience, selfishness, and the downfall of society

Okay, a few quick points:

1) We say that our dollar is our vote. We support things that we like, and we boycott things we don't like. In this way we seek to build a better culture with the purchases we make and the things we choose to support.

2) However, many of us are selfish, and we find ways to cut costs so that we can have more money. Oh, don't feel so bad, that's what capitalism teaches us to do. Cut expenses, maximize profits. So, we cut "frivolous expenses" like music, art, opera, books... If we get music, we get burned copies or downloaded albums.

3) As we cut these costs, the artists stop receiving an income. Because of this, many artists have to stop being artists and become something they're not, like cabinet-makers.

4) As this cycle continues, we may find ourselves in a culture without art. Well, probably not. But maybe not as rich and varied. Maybe not as good. It's a negative effect.

Will we revert to a system of patronage? Like, where the only people who had money were the church, so the only music that made money were religious pieces? Or will we move to a system like (I believe) Iceland, where the government is a patron for the arts, simply to keep the rich, Icelandic culture thriving? Or will we somehow revive our economic conscience, and start paying for the things we value? Because, lets face it folks, we all benefit from art and music.

Can capitalism save Zimbabwe?

Several weeks ago I overheard a conversation between two people. One was a friend of mine, now working to be a missionary in Zimbabwe. His main passion is using people in Zimbabwe to build houses - creating housing where there is a huge shortage, and creating jobs. Sounds like a win/win.

He was describing this mission to his boss. The boss had an interesting view of the housing shortage there. He said something to the effect of: "They should let some capitalism loose over there. Get rid of all the bureaucracy."

You see, he was under the impression that any time there is a problem it MUST be caused by the government, and capitalism SURELY would be able to fix it.

Today's blog is about why I think I disagree with him.

How is capitalism going to encourage the building of housing for people who are poor? If they can't pay for the houses, who will? The core value system of capitalism doesn't support charity. The core of capitalism is defeat your competition, make profit at all cost.

The only way capitalism would touch Zimbabwe is if it could profit off of Zimbabwe.

If pure capitalism were introduced locally, you might see some entrepreneurial people of Zimbabwe, but where will they find start up capital? What bank will lend a poor man in a poor country a substantial amount of money to start a business?

My real question is, how does a country lift itself out of poverty? I'm not saying that capitalism shouldn't be part of the answer - I'm just saying that I don't think capitalism itself is enough to take an entire country from poor to self-sufficient. There needs to be a spark. Somehow, some capital needs to flow into the country so that businesses and jobs can be created.

I think that it's easy for those of us over here who are benefiting from capitalism (like wealthy business owners) to forget what it's like on the other side of capitalism's barrel. If you have nothing, and can't get anything, can't get a job, can't start a business... what do you do?


I don't really have any answers on this one. I'd really like to hear all of your thoughts.

Buying local

I have mixed feelings about supporting local businesses.

For the most part I support it. For reasons like these listed here: http://conservationvalue.blogspot.com/2010/04/why-buy-local.html Mainly, that it encourages diversity, and relationship-based business. I mean, in theory it's a great thing. You know all the people that supply your groceries, that make your coffee, that build your furniture, whatever it may be. It's a real person that you can talk to if you have a problem, rather than another big faceless corporation. It makes you feel more connected to the world, more like a human, less like part of a big global economic machine. I like all of these ideas.

But, I think it's naive to postulate that in every case a local business is better than a big business. I think giving unquestioning, unconditional support to a business simply because it is local is dangerous. I mean, some companies rise to prominence because they provide a better product. Perhaps they're more efficient as a business. Maybe they actually do provide better customer service.

This point was illustrated very well by an episode of South Park titled Gnomes (Season 2, Episode 17). For the majority of the episode, you hear the plight of the small coffee-shop owner who is being run out of business by a big coffee conglomerate. You really feel for him, you're up in arms about local business. That is, until the end, when the characters actually taste the coffee, and found that the local coffee shop's coffee was terrible, and the big business coffee tasted lovely.

My point is this: In an ideal world, I would love to buy everything locally, absolutely everything. And I think that there are many reasons to support doing this. But, by the ideals of capitalism (which, admittedly, I'm not sure I support fully), we should support the business with the better business model, and the better product. To support a local business with a worse product is, in essence, to prop up mediocrity where it should die like a sickly goat among lions.

Now, after all of this, I will say this: I will always support Blue Line coffee, on 50th and Underwood. Why? Because they're locally owned? Sure. But, mostly because I know the baristas, and I know that they still maintain the art of making coffee. So, their coffee just tastes better than anything out of a super-automatic machine, like Starbucks, Scooters, Crane Coffee, etc. all use. Sometimes local is better.

A note on the billboards pimpling over our fields - shall we pop them?

If you've noticed that I have ad banners plastered all over my page, it's because I wanted to make my blog as much like an American highway as possible. Capitalism has made our society not very subtle. It's made our society a loudspeaker saying "buy buy buy!" even if it detracts from the beauty and subtlety of the world around us.

Have you noticed that the ads are more and more intrusive on our favorite shows? Not only are they stopped every few minutes for commercial breaks - now they have ads that run across the bottom of the screen DURING the show, along with station logos. And those ads get bigger and bigger as we get better and better at ignoring them.

Nascar's a great example. The cars and drivers are walking billboards. They take their helmet off, they put on a hat with a dozen logos.

Why can't we drive along a road and see trees rather than ads? Why can't we watch a show that is a piece of art rather than a sales pitch? Is no one else sick of this?

Capitalism, breeder of innovation (in the field of scam artistry)

I've often questioned whether capitalism is truly the ideal economic system that people seem to say it is. People worship it. I've heard people with shining faces talk of God, democracy, and capitalism - like these are the holy trinity. That these three things are pure and perfect, and we need to spread them so that the whole world might be free.

I'm not sure about this.

Pure capitalism can be a brutal thing. It tramples the weak underfoot of the rich. So, it is the subject of many of my philosophical ponderings. Is capitalism truly good? Are there systems that might work better?

Many people, in defense of capitalism, will say that it breeds innovation through the competition of ideas. This may be true in some cases. But I've also seen another side effect of capitalism, and that is the scamming of the consumer.

Let's look at some examples:

1) Cigarettes. For centuries people have harvested tobacco and smoked it. But, once it became a big business, they started adding chemicals to make it addictive. Of course it makes good business sense to make it so that people are dependent on your product. If profit-motive wasn't an issue, chemical additives wouldn't have ever entered into cigarettes.

2) Lotion. I've been told (by women who use lotion) that lotion companies put alcohol in their lotions. Why? Because alcohol dries your skin out. So, once you use it to moisturize your skin, you feel the need to use it again in a few hours. Once again, making the consumer dependent on the product.

It just seems like if you look at products being put out and really think what the product would be like if profit-motive weren't involved, that you would often have a much better product, because the focus would be on making the best product, not on marketing, or getting people addicted to it, or cutting costs to protect your bottom line.

But how do we create a world without profit-motive? It seems impossible in modern America. And people claim that without profit as an incentive, people lose their motivation to work.

Thoughts? Innovations?

Franzia, the worlds most popular wine

The main theme of capitalism is that you let businesses compete in a free market, and the best will rise to the top.

What really happens though is that those that are the cheapest and most accessible or convenient rise to the top.

Like, McDonalds... Wal-Mart... Starbucks... and Franzia boxed wine.

Franzia is not at all the best wine in the world. Far from it. It kind of sucks. But, it's cheap, it's sold everywhere. And thus it gets to tout that it's the world's most popular. And that many people can't be wrong, right?

McDonalds sells crap that, as we've seen in Supersize Me, you shouldn't eat. But, they have locations EVERYWHERE. Best food in the world? No. Cheapest and most convenient? They have the drive through and the dollar menu. And they even have a playplace and a clown to lure in the little ones. Yay capitalism.

Starbucks has taken espresso-making, an Italian art-form, and distilled it to McDonald's level crap. They use super-automatic machines that take out both all of the skill of making coffee as well as all of the ability to correct flaws in the product from the coffee-making process. It takes an artist and makes them a button-pusher. Turns a human into a cog in a machine. But they're trendy. They've branded themselves well. They took Italy and brought it to America (after bastardizing it). And they have drive-throughs. So, you can feel pretentious and faux-Italian on your way to your crappy suburban job.


I've read the Fountainhead. You should too. Not for Ayn Rand's philosophy of anarcho-capitalism (which I don't believe the truths in the novel support), but for her brilliant portrayal of typical American mob-mentality. Stick with what is comfortable and easy. Steer clear of genius. That's what American capitalism comes down to. Not what greatness can we achieve, but what cheap crap can we pander to the masses.

Indoctrination (or, Please Pass the Propaganda)

I heard a radio program today where they interviewed a political prisoner from North Korea, and a prison guard from the same prison. You can hear the broadcast here:
(http://www.rnw.nl/english/radioshow/north-korea-police-state-prison-state-0)

But it has led me to think about indoctrination, and how it affects us all.
-This prisoner believed, through his wrongful incarceration, that he was actually at fault, that he should be a better citizen. He felt no ill will towards his country. And he had no idea that human rights existed until he reached South Korea.

-The guards believe that the prisoners are the enemy, that if they don't beat and kill the prisoners, that they will beat and kill the guards.


I also have a friend in the military who told me that he found propaganda on a dead North Korean soldier (he'll have to correct me if I'm misquoting his story), but the propaganda led them to believe that they were the world's economic superpower, and countries like America are just trying to steal their wealth.

That's all very disconcerting across the world, but aren't we indoctrinated in America as well? We're led to believe that democracy and capitalism are ideals, but very few of us actually look with an open mind at other political systems. We're led to believe that we're justified in being the world police. In imposing our will upon other nations. We're blinded to the things we do abroad for financial gain.

In America, we're led to believe that we have a real choice in elections. Political parties try to be the polar opposites of the other, and they try so hard to make the other party look like the villain, trying to destroy America. I think most Americans, though, find themselves agreeing in part with both parties, and disagreeing in part with both parties. So, why the polarization? Why do they want to make it into a war? Why don't we just elect moderates, and we can get some things done?

And then there are ways that both parties are exactly the same. I had a nice chat with a friend from work about how politicians get so much money from big oil companies to run their campaigns. I think there are many partnerships between big donors and lawmakers that go on behind the scenes, and that aren't necessarily beneficial for the American people. Could this party war be a way to distract from the real problems in the government?

Check out this Rage Against the Machine video that I think illustrates this point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JSBhI_0at0

Religious indoctrination

We aren't just indoctrinated by political groups, either. Let's look at some beliefs the world's major religions pass on to impressionable children:

Islamic children are raised to believe that infidels are a threat.
Jewish children are raised to believe that the soil they stand on was given to them by God.
Christians are raised to believe that homosexuality is a threat to the moral fiber of the nation.

Now, I'm not saying that these things are true or false. That's for you to believe or not believe. I'm just pointing out that we all teach our children the religious beliefs that we hold now, at an age where they accept anything authority tells them without question. They have to, because they're not old enough to know better. If they questioned a parent's orders, they'll walk out into traffic or play with fire.

All religions tell children that they have the absolute truth. That they should just believe it, and that science and other religions are either the frail human mind trying to explain things that are beyond it's grasp, or even the work of Satan himself, trying to lie to you. Don't question, don't think for yourself. Believe!

My point is that we're all indoctrinated. We're raised by our family, or by our society, or by the slogans of political parties. We're trained to see the world a certain way. And we need to be aware of that. We're only getting an incomplete, slanted picture of the world.

But once we're aware, how do we educate ourselves? Are we doomed to always be like our North Korean cellmate, unaware that human rights exist? Or will we reach freedom, and see what we've been missing?

I think that we need to actively fight against the ethnocentrism that has been bred into us. For one, broaden your access to different news sources. If you're a conservative, listen to a liberal news source -- with an open mind! And vise versa. I think a key is the free access of information, which the internet helps with immensely. But, it only helps if we access it. Watch documentaries about other cultures. Talk to people from other countries. Get a philosophy book, and learn to really walk through the logic behind ideas. And, most importantly, make it a point to travel. But travel with an open mind. Don't travel as an American tourist, travel as a person wanting to experience the world.

It's up to us to find truth, rather than accepting what we're fed.




Listen to the fascist sing
Take hope here
War is elsewhere
You were chosen
This is god's land
Soon well be free
Of blot and mixture
Seeds planted by our
Forefathers hand

The President's Disaster (or, the Monday Morning Quarterbacks)

The BP oil spill in the gulf coast is a tremendous disaster, both environmentally and economically for the people and communities depending on the coast.

I've listened in horror to the news reports on NPR, with attempt after attempt failing to stop the flow of oil. The statements that it might not get plugged until they can dig a relief well - a process that won't be completed until August.

It's easy, now that there's been a gaping wound in the crust of the earth for over 40 days now, to look back in hindsight and say that things haven't been handled properly.

While this may be true, and thinking about how to handle things properly is a worthwhile pursuit, I think there are some serious dangers to this kind of thinking, as well. I think we, as a nation, tend to be monday morning quarterbacks. It's easy for us to look back and say, "Well, this is a huge disaster, the President should have done more to stop it. It doesn't seem like he's doing very much."

Well, there are two points: 1) You, a lay person in the middle of farm country, U.S.A., really have no idea what the President is doing.
2) You, with your expert in farm equipment maintenance, would be hard pressed to know the first step to handling a huge crisis like this. So, I'd like to see you do better.

When that oil platform first exploded, my thought was horror at the loss of life. 11 men died. That's tragic. I didn't immediately think, "There's no way they'll be able to cap this spill! Let's start building 100 miles of sand barriers to protect our coast line!" No one knew the scale that this would become. So, yeah, maybe Obama hasn't handled this like he could have, but I think it's ridiculous to expect a man, just because he's the President, to never make a mistake when he's thrown such a monumental curve ball.


So, to all these polls showing that a majority of the country thinks that Obama's not doing enough to stop the oil spill, I would question where you formed that belief. Is it because he hasn't been impassioned enough in his speaking? Or because BP hasn't found a way to fix their problem yet? Or because Obama hasn't kicked them aside from their area of expertise in order to tinker with it? Or because he didn't know 40 days ago that he'd need to build barrier islands?

I'm just afraid that it's all politicized spin.

That said, I think we should look more carefully about the future of offshore drilling, and be more prepared for disasters like this in the future.

I think we need to look carefully at the financial relationship between big energy businesses and the government. A coworker shared with me his belief that the government will never harshly discipline an oil business, or enact laws that don't favor big oil, because politicians get so much money from oil businesses for their campaigns. Is this a bribe, when it really comes down to it? And is this in the best interest of the people?

I think it'll be interesting to see what, if any, money BP gives back to the communities and fishermen that are affected by their follies.


But, I think we should judge Obama more on his policies than on this misguided assumption that he should have fixed this disaster by now.

Capitalism (or, Cogs in the Corporate Machine)

Why do we work so hard?

Science fiction is often the precursor for things to come. In Star Trek, we got our first glimpse of cell phones and doors that open when someone gets close to them. That's fairly common. Science fiction writers envision cool new stuff, young scientists figure out how to make it happen.

I read a science fiction book awhile back, I believe it was called Childhood's End (but it could be a different book). What struck me is that the author described how with the advancement of machines and automation, the world's goods were produced largely without mankind's assistance.

Working was made obsolete.

Essentially, the author described the society where everyone had what they needed, and were free to pursue other passions. They could create art and music, they could travel, they could study history and philosophy. People continued to work, but only on things they were passionate about. They didn't work simply to keep this big global machine spinning. They weren't just a cog. They were people.

Sadly, this science fiction dream has not been realized. Doctor Pastor Craig Finnestad once said in a sermon that the washing machine, the every day device that washes our clothes for us, was supposed to make our lives easier for us. It was supposed to give us more time for other interests. Instead, what it did was drastically increase our standards of cleanliness. We are now hyper critical about getting rid of every spot on our clothes -- God forbid we wear the same jeans twice without washing them. It's ridiculous to the point of O.C.D. Why?


There were times where 12 hour days and 6 or 7 day work weeks was the norm. Now our society has progressed to the 40 hour work week. Why not take it down to 35? Or 20?

We're trained to believe that we need to work so that we can BUY BUY BUY more STUFF STUFF STUFF. So, instead of living our lives, we work our lives away pursuing an ever increasing standard of materialism. Greed governs our very existence. They don't paint it that way. It's described as the American Dream. Supplying for your family. Work is noble, work is good. Laziness is disgusting. Buy buy buy buy buy, screams every commercial, every radio program, every store shop window, every billboard, every newspaper, every magazine....

And economists tell us that if consumer confidence isn't restored - if we don't start spending - we'll lose our jobs. So, if you don't BUY BUY BUY, you might not be able to EAT EAT EAT.

What if we could make a different kind of society? I'm not an Anthropologist (I'm hoping Heather will chime in here), but what were tribes like before the birth of the capitalist monster? They weren't all concerned with getting more stuff. They worked enough to eat and live, and then they enjoyed their lives.

It's so hard to envision such a society. We've been told all our lives that capitalism and democracy are good and holy, and we need to spread these ideals to the rest of the world. I think that's a whisper from the breath of big business, because they don't want their little cogs to stop turning.

The hope center - how we help people

In church this morning, I just heard the founder of the Hope Center talk about helping poor kids in North Omaha become employable and have more hope for their future. It sounded like a great program. They tutored kids to get caught up in school. They had art and athletic programs. He gave statistics about how the kids in their program had much higher graduation rates, they got steady jobs. They had futures and a sense of community, where before their only safety was in gang life.

But my question is, why are Christians so likely to be conservative and vote against social programs - like this one - when the government does it, but support it when the church does it? Could it be that they don't actually want to help people, so much as propagate their beliefs and feel good about their generosity?

If we wanted to help lift people out of poverty, we would want such social programs to be available to all children - without religious strings attached. If we wanted such a society, we would vote for government officials who would help shape such a society. Instead, Christians are notoriously conservative. And increasingly I've been finding the fundamental views of conservatism to be "personal responsibility." (Which roughly translates to, "if you're poor, then you're on your own." or "You're not getting any of my money." or "I WORK for my money (even though I had rich white parents who put me through college and I have a cushy desk job that pays 6 figures, while you work twice as many hours a week at crappy hourly jobs, trying to save enough money to go to a community college), so I don't give out handouts.")

{Since we all know that poverty is a hole that's nearly impossible to dig yourself out of. You can't go to college unless you can afford to pay the college bills, and pay the rent while you're studying - which you can't do unless you have a high-paying job - which you can't get unless you have a college degree - which you can't get unless.... Ad infinitum}

But then when a program like this comes into their church, they all feel bad for the poor little black children in North Omaha, without a dad to come see their football games. And then they want to help - but only when it comes by way of a preacher not a politician, and only when they don't actually have to get involved, and only when it doesn't raise their taxes or make them uncomfortable, and only when they can feel really really good about themselves for putting five dollars in the offering bucket. Is that really what Jesus would have wanted?

I think we need to focus on actually building a better society, not doing temporary fixes that either a) make us feel good about ourselves or b) propagate our beliefs, with the goal of making everybody just like us. (The Ann Coulter effect; in a perfect world, everyone would be a white, middle class Christian conservative American.)

I think that the Hope Center is a great program. I think that their tutoring and arts programs, their focus on employability - these things are definitely needed. Sometimes I'm just uncertain of how we get there, and how pure our motives are.

Really, I'm always amazed at the disconnect between Christian "selfless generosity for those in need" and "the servant's heart," and Christian "you're on your own" conservative politics. If Christians really had a servant's heart, would that not show through in their voting record?