Church Hypocrites: Hate the Rich, Want Their Money

First, a defense of hypocrites. Hypocrites, by nature, profess to believe in something. Usually, hypocrites profess to believe in things of value, noble principles or virtues, though I suppose it’s possible for a hypocrite to believe in things that have little moral value. Either way, hypocrites, whether they mean it or not, stand up for a belief. It is in that risk taking that the character of the hypocrite is revealed to be flawed, thus negating the very values the person upholds. So by that measure, I consider every Christian to be perfect examples of hypocrisy, and that’s not entirely a bad thing. Unlike their atheist or agnostic brethren, at least they confess to believe in something beyond themselves. And in that confession, they fall short, and are easily labeled as hypocrites.

So I am a proud hypocrite, but I do not hold that all hypocrisies are created equal. Blatant hypocrisy based on conceit or pride clearly are worse than the hypocrisies that are inevitable when one does their best to live out a moral life and falls short. So I will have the audacity to propose the kind of hypocrisy that irritates me the most. I was listening to a speech tonight by a pastor who is nothing short of courageous, who gave a very engaging speech, but also repeated a lot of very tired clichés that have been disproved enough times to be discredited. Yet here they were again, presented as gospel truth to impressionable teenagers who are too young to understand economics well enough to debate.

The sentiment was great, the intentions are well-meaning, but how long do we have to hang on to the following untruths: The minimum wage needs to be increased, the rich are greedy, and huge companies like Wal-Mart are helping to keep the poor impoverished? There was no discussion of reliance on social programs, or the hint that they might make poverty worse. There was no discussion about the importance of the father in the home. At least he, unlike the State, understood that real change could come to the truly down-and-out if they could make better life decisions. He, for example, worked closely with many to help them become free of addictions.

One story in particular jumped out at me. The pastor, who works in inner-city Milwaukee, asked a banking CEO who makes $4.6 million/year when “enough was enough?” That’s a fair question to ask. Eventually, it seemed to inspire this CEO to donate over a million dollars to scholarships for poor African-Americans so that they might achieve. Yet, the same pastor could not see the irony when he lamented the woes of capitalism and recommended such socialist drivel as “Pedagogy of the Oppressed” or “Nickeled and Dimed.” What was it that allowed the banker to donate the $1 million? Was it socialism? Communism? No, it was the capitalist system, and the prosperity that came as a result that allowed him to give away a third of his salary for a year.

At one point, he asked, “Why does this country so hate the rich?” I wondered when the last time he watched the news was. Has he not yet heard that we are the most generous nation in the history of the world? Americans per capita are more charitable than anyone else, is that not correct? I guess because the minimum wage is only $5.15, America must hate the poor. But what about the data that proves that the minimum wage has never statistically helped the poor, or the simple common sense that if it did, the first minimum wage would have licked poverty? Inflation, you say? What do you think causes it? Increased in wages leads to increased consumer prices, and so the cycle goes.

I won’t preach to the choir (pardon the pun) anymore than necessary, I just have one request. For those who bemoan capitalism, please do me the favor of not benefiting from its fruits. If money from capitalism is as good as “blood money,” please be happy running a commune. I realize there is corruption in capitalism like any other economic system, but given its voluntary nature, I will defend it as a more moral system than the systems Paulo Freire or Barbara Ehrenreich espouse. Meanwhile, I’ll be looking the moral capitalists in the eye at my church and thanking them for their generous donations, which we will use as best we can to help those in need.

Crankin' out the Hits: Why Many Architects Won't Design Traditionally

On the question of what is good design, architects and non-architects rarely seem to agree. Particularly since the ascendancy of Modernism during the last century, architects have used a different set of values in deeming what a well-designed building should look like. Much of the public, particularly in the U.S., have expressed their dislike of modern design and often for very good reason: modern architecture struggled to express monumentality, function was not apparent to the users due to the style’s minimalism and lack of signifying ornament. Modern architecture seemed contemptuous of the local context, deliberately clashing with the surrounding built context instead of harmonizing with it.

In response, the trends in design have adapted to these criticisms, incorporating context to form a new synthesis commonly called critical regionalism. The rise of the Post-Modern style addressed the importance of traditional architectural motifs and the need for the building to clearly express what it is (albeit in its ironic and ambiguous way). And still much of the design highly regarded by the architectural profession still borrows heavily from the formal innovations of the earliest Modernist pioneers. This incessant tendency among the most highly regarded architects to design in the modern idiom fails to win many fans outside professional and academic circles or people with a general appreciation for modern art. One gets the impression that only if architects could return to using traditional styles and conform to classical rules of design and re-use time-tested building typologies, then all would be hunky-dory and architects wouldn’t come off as smug aesthetes.

Quite a few architects have taken that route with much success, but in my opinion the reason that the most ambitious designers dedicate themselves to the modern style has lots to do with the nature of architecture as a profession. For much of the history of Western civilization, a pleasing design was one that embodied the visual harmony brought forth by the skillful use of proportional systems, of following proper architectural vocabularies evolved from local tradition, and often applying symmetry where applicable. Building types were few and simple technologies derived from masonry construction were all that was available for large permanent structures. The profession of architecture as it is currently understood did not exist throughout most of our history, since the job of designing structures was left to the master mason along with the engineer. Vitruvius, who wrote the first major theoretical manual on architecture, was a Roman military officer and engineer, with much of his text devoted to the successful planning of encampments and fortresses. During the European Middle Ages, the Gothic cathedrals soared because of the knowledge of the master mason, who drew very schematically the plan of the church and tried to retain designs of each design in the form of shop secrets.

The notion that a building should be designed by an academically educated professional came about during the Italian renaissance. This new kind of specialist, the architect, would be steeped in the theoretical knowledge inherited from the Ancients (Vitruvius’s manual, for instance) as well as be broadly exposed to prevailing intellectual doctrines of humanism, science, mathematics and art. Rather than coming from the work site as a mason and being closely involved in the manufacture of every building component as was typical of construction projects before then, the architect would generate a plan and compositions for the facades of the structure through the abstract techniques of drafting on paper. He would naturally use the knowledge he had acquired from his theoretical education instead of methods and common practices learned from a mason’s many years of apprenticeship. It is not surprising at this time that architects were credited with authoship, as individuals like Alberti, Brunesleschi and Palladio becoming among the first to be identified with their designs.

With the establishment of the first schools of architecture during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the profession became more formalized and naturally more mired in design theory. Although architecture schools did not train designers on how to manage a practice, it did inculcate a sense that what distinguished architects from other construction trades was a unique poetic insight. Before Modernism took over the beaux-arts curriculum at the architecture schools, the debate was on the nature of the proper rules that should govern design, such as the tension between the respect for the traditional orders and the desire to innovate within them. The Bauhaus-inspired curriculum would throw out such concerns, concentrating more on the re-learning the most basic concepts of forms, visual relationships, color and technology.

Contemporary architects in the U.S. are mostly educated under a curriculum loosely based on Bauhaus principles. They have studied the history of architecture to some degree, often traveling to old European capitals to sketch its marvels. And yet the notion that to be a modern architect is to therefore be a creative and artistically professional comes as a given. Modernism’s lack of precise rules of composition allows anyone to believe that they are generating a scheme as unique as any other. Everyone gets to be a special designer, can create their distinct signature on a building. The only problem is that a miniscule number of such designers actually have the talent to pull off an original but transcendentally beautiful building. For many, the design process is a true joy, but achieving a moving design is extremely hard. It is doubly difficult when applying the Modernist style precisely because the rules are too few or too subtle. In my ideal world, those who are short of design talent (but are good at everything else) should incorporate a traditional style and diligently apply classical rules of proportion and composition. It is a foolproof means toward pleasingly attractive buildings, and would be a much better alternative to the numerous lazy modernist design experiments gone wrong.

When people are given the right to express themselves as individuals in any vocation, it usually will never be voluntarily revoked. Creating an original object, whether it is art, an artifact, or a building is often fulfilling precisely because it allows an individual to realize himself in the physical world. The architectural profession during the last century has made this experience accessible to those who aren’t quite artists nor are they pure engineers. Demanding that architects should give up on employing Modernist design in favor of using historicism is in reality a demand for architects to renounce their identity as a theoretically educated specialist of poetic license. It is a demand for architects to resume a role similar to master masons and mere practitioners of classical rules of composition.

The American Institute of Architects supposedly awards projects that demonstrate genuine design talent and technical mastery. It does not award the skillful application of historic styles. Such awards are a recognition by the architectural community of efforts in innovation and quality. Judging by the comments from this post over at 2 Blowhards, it is clear that quality and sophistication are defined quite differently between those within the architectural profession and those outside. For those outside the profession, it is fundamental to understand that the buildings awarded were very difficult to execute and the risks involved much higher than a more traditional solution. The result might look minimalist at times, but such designs require tremendous meditation on the part of the designer. Classicist design, because of its elaborate codification handed down from the ages, requires relatively little reflection. It is the meditative aspect of the profession that inspires the young to become architects, and serves as a major basis in judging excellent work.

Would you rather have architects crank out the old hits anyway? Most of them think they are more than that, to their own success or demise.

Travel Lightly: Discipleship, Phase II

For those unfamiliar with trends in the Church who would usually assume them to be rather boring, I find some of the recent trends in mainline churches fascinating. In my own denomination, I’ve been impressed by the way “discipleship” language has effectively taken over the conversation as churches realize their antique views of membership were at best self-centered, and at worst conceited. It seems that some mainline churches have made real efforts to get out of the “head above water” mode and have struggled with how to be an evangelistic people. Phase I of this was simple: change the language so that people in the pews see themselves not as “members” as much as literal “disciples” of Christ, folks who “follow” him and abide by his teachings as the disciples did 2,000 years ago. Phase II is even more interesting, as the next step may be some sort of de-centralization so individual churches are more “headquarters” to distribution centers than the totality of that church’s ministry.

Is this the future of business as well? As my fiancée enjoys Mondays being her official work-from-home day, it seems that the Internet and the manual-labor-free nature of work in America have made centralization of the workplace less relevant. Is it possible that in the future, one building may house workers for dozens of different companies, serving as a convenient place to meet more than the nexus of the company, sort of like a mall houses many retailers? Will companies become more de-centralized as America’s economy revolves more around ideas, information and automation than physical labor? In other words, will the lunch pail and hardhat continue to be replaced by work-from-home days and de-centralized companies?

Perhaps we should give Southwest Airlines a lot of credit for proving the impossible in the airline industry. They said they would be more efficient by being a “hubless” airline, focusing on short, non-stop flights. It worked, and remarkably well at that. Most of the other major airlines were already too reliant on hubs (and too beholden to labor unions) to compete and have since declared bankruptcy. But Southwest found a new way to be lean and mean, to rid of the idea of centralization in travel. I wonder if this is the sort of de-centralization that will continue to define American business and even the Church?

Like I said, Phase II of the discipleship model seems to be not only for Christians to see themselves as disciples of Christ more than members of a church, but also to see the Church as more of a headquarters than the totality of the life of that church. Think of a bicycle wheel with the center being the church and the spokes being its ministry. It’s as close as we may get to entrepreneurship in the Church, where there still is a center, but there are more ministries than can think for themselves. Most churches continue to operate from the hub mentality with themselves at the focus of everything. They put so many financial eggs into that basket that there is little left for anything else. But can churches thrive within a city having one lean base of operations, but many other “distribution centers”? Will Christian churches in a post-Christian world come to be outposts along the way than the center of the city square?

And how did we get to where we are, anyway? It seems to me that the basic model Jesus gave us in the life of discipleship was fundamentally altered as the Church and culture became synonymous in the West. If I remember what one Oxford professor told me, a city wasn’t technically a “city” unless it had a cathedral, at least in England. This was the difference between “town” and “city”. Either way, cities and towns were both built around the church in many cases. It was the center of public life, often in the center of the town. (Architects and city planners, feel free to offer comments on historical accuracy.) Why bother to “go” or “send” if the church is in the middle of town and everyone knows it’s there? Even though this model was physically changed as cities changed and mentally/spiritually changed with post-modernism, many churches cling to this lazy sort of evangelism. I admit, it is awfully tempting.

The reality is that cities changed as populations grew, transportation improved, and mass communication became the norm. As cities changed, so did the role of the Church within them. Churches should no longer have assumed the same place of centrality. But it has taken several generations for the Church to accept that. For several decades, my own denomination has been in denial of this change, seemingly still looking to the shores for more boats of Norwegians, Germans or Swedes to come and fill the pews. Well, wouldn’t you know it, the boats stopped coming. And so we arrive at what always was: the command by Jesus to “Go.” And not only go, but travel lightly, because it’s hostile out there. Now that Phase II is upon us, how will the Church react, especially those who haven’t entered Phase I?

Can We Save the World? Less is More with Charity Endeavors

A few comments on some recent articles have been especially inspiring. I like to think that if nothing else, most of the writing on this site is committed to reality. And not grim, dour, and pessimistic reality with a “there’s nothing we can do about it” mindset that assumes we are mere automatons in a machinated world. But we strive to be grounded in reality because we hold the conviction that the truth is invaluable in solving social problems. The assumption here is that the world’s persistent ills are not solved by romantic, catch-all solutions that promise everything and do little, but by accepting the reality that surviving and thriving in the world is the result of working, doing our part, and, especially, learning from history.

So when I write about the fallacy of the “all you need is love” mantra or the over-reliance on “justice” instead of “mercy” as a concept for helping others, it is this realistic worldview I am appealing to. Thus, the following slogan that appeared in a comment struck me again at the way we continually delude ourselves, the way our best intentions often die like a fish out of water, and the way the arrogance of our modern age drives sacred and secular culture alike to make promises it cannot possibly keep. “One Spirit. One Will. Zero Poverty” is the slogan of Bread for the World (bread.org), a massive non-profit whose stated goal is to seek “justice for the world's hungry people by lobbying our nation's decision makers.” (There’s that justice word again.)

Certainly, Bread for the World may do a great deal of good work, and may seek to follow the example given by Jesus Christ when he fed the poor. I will give Bread the BFTW the benefit of the doubt that its intentions are good and godly, performed out of compassion generated by seeing truly suffering people. It’s not the intentions I question, but the stated goal. This phrase, this implied promise, “zero poverty,” strikes me as so beyond the pale, it makes me wonder what the real intentions of BFTW are. Who of truly noble intent has ever made such promises, or has even considered such an impossible goal to be possible? Even Jesus (who even secular folks would find it hard to argue was an exceptionally charitable person) never promised utopia this side of heaven, even as he fed four or five thousand at a time with a few fish and loaves. The number of charlatans and dictators that have made such promises is striking, however. And BFTW’s goal is centered squarely in a materialistic framework, but has the audacity to assume spiritual understandings of “justice” to make their work appear like it is solely inspired by Jesus-loving piety.

If the adage that “it is better to tell a big lie than a little lie” is correct, BFTW is certainly telling a whopper. Even if by their math they have number-crunched the wealth of the world against the hungry of the world, and by their idealistic ways of thinking they can see how there could no longer be poverty, who would actually believe that upping the federal budget here will get the money into the hands of the poor in “developing” nations? The power is not in the legislation, but in the distribution. All of the hopes and dreams for zero poverty go out the window as soon as a middleman gets involved and funnels American taxpayers to warlords in a corrupt country.

All of this pie-in-the-sky thinking about “zero poverty” is a misguided waste of time. To create real wealth for people hinges not on the good intentions of wealthy countries like the US, but on the rule of law in those that are poor. Without property rights, relatively clean government, and enough virtue in the culture to abide by the ever-fragile reliance on the law, we should never expect anything but poverty. Basic economics suggests and real history has proved that poverty is never eradicated by BFTW’s ridiculous solution to attain “zero poverty”: upping America’s federal budget and giving the money to politicians in poor countries. We’ll only be empowering corrupt leaders who keep the poor subjugated as it is.

So let’s stick with reality. Forget zero poverty. Let’s tighten the scope, get a little more myopic, help those we can most easily help. If you want to help the poor in third world countries, give them goats, cattle or dig them a water well. The Church here could start by helping those who are dependent on such government aid to become self-sufficient (in an economic sense, not a theological one). Perhaps BFTW could attempt to create “zero poverty” in their own neighborhood before having the arrogance to tell Congress what to do. Or hey, just read up on failed socialist/communist economies of the past. A little history lesson would make slogans like BFTW’s all but impossible to ever consider.

Why America Will Lose....Unless...

America will lose the war in Iraq as it stands. The loss will not come as a result of insufficient training, inferior equipment, or even the lack of willingness by our troops on the ground. The loss will be a result of the American Media and the weakness of our elected Federal Government Officials. Our Federal Government is under constant attack by those in the media and our treasonous liberal government officials that wish more troops would die. They wish this because the more troops die, the worse it looks for our President. George Bush knows that the war in Iraq is not being fought by the commanders on the ground over there, but fought here on Capitol Hill and in the pages of the press.

Our government has become nothing but a reaction based body that jumps and does things for the Liberal Press. This is no surprise to those of us that follow politics and live on the conservative side of the isle. We are disgusted at what we see in Washington, and know that those who founded this country are rolling in their graves. Soldiers are constantly saying that we need to let them do what they’ve been trained to do. In Boot Camp we try to make our soldiers into warriors, but then send them off to sensitivity training. There is no sensitivity in war, there is no sensitivity in killing, and our enemy has no sensitivity for our way of life. We are trying to fight a sensitive war with a foe that has no tolerance for anyone’s way of life. A good analogy is this: Two men are fighting. One of these men can only punch with his right hand. The other man can fight how ever he pleases. This other man can use kicks to the groin, pull hair, and poke eyes while the first has to only use his right hand. Who do you think will win?

As we know the military, specifically the Marine Corps, is under attack for what the press and Democratic Party is calling a “murderous rampage”. Seven Marines and one Nave Corpsman are accused of killing “innocent” civilians in a fire-fight in Iraq. First of all, we don’t know if they were innocent and are taking the word of the Sunni People over in Iraq. We haven’t even charged our soldiers with anything yet, but have the shackled in solitary confinement. Better treatment is given to child molesters and rapist in prison. This is an absolute disgrace to all Americans. Yes, the Sunni people have provided have footage of bullet holes in the heads of Iraqi civilians, but that doesn’t say where those holes came from. I believe those bullets were put there by the Iraqi people opposing our involvement in their country after those civilians were dead. A building was brought down in the fire-fight thus civilians were unfortunately killed. This gave the Sunni’s the chance they needed to demean the American forces. But wait, wasn’t Saddam a Sunni? Aren’t these people telling us this information loyal to Saddam? Of course they are so why in the hell are we taking their word for it? Because our press is also loyal to Saddam. Our government has once again jumped and sent our soldiers to “Sensitivity Training” to teach them how to cope with the Iraqi people. How weak can we be? Patton would be sick! How in the world can we continue to have a volunteer military when people see their government turn their backs and betray those military men and women that have given so much? I am sickened. Finally, those like John Kerry have gotten their way.

While we are trying to fight the nice war and sending our weakened military to die, the enemies of our country are laughing at us. They mock us and know that we are weakened by the liberal press and the reaction based government that cowers to that liberal press. Osama Bin Laden even said that the American people don’t have the stomach for casualties. The thought that we can stop Iran is laughable. The thought that we will prevent a Civil War in Iraq is a far off thought. Our government simply does not have the testicular fortitude to do what is needed. Rain hell from above. The job of the military is to inflict the maximum amount of destruction in the shortest time possible. The military is there to break the will of the enemy. If that means carpet bombing a city to rubble, that’s what it means. War is hell. We haven’t won a war since World War II. Not Vietnam, Not Iraq. Iraq hasn’t ended yet. Yes, it started in 1991, but hasn’t ended. We’re still there. We will lose if things remain in this constant state of mismanagement. We will lose for the same reasons that Vietnam was lost. Our press and our mindless people don’t have the stomach for death. They don’t have the stomach for war. In war, innocent people die, warriors lust for killing the enemy, and the enemy is brought to submission. Then, and only then, will the enemy country be able to be rebuilt. Just like Japan was and just like Germany was after World War II.

So maybe the liberals are right. Maybe we shouldn’t be in Iraq. If you can’t do it right, don’t do it at all. My opinion is that the soldiers that have died over there will have died in vein if things don’t change. They have not been backed by our government and have lashed over and over by our media. The job cannot be accomplished using political correctness. There is only one way. Complete victory. If I knew that our government would be sending our boys out and be as weak as they are, I wouldn’t support the war effort. I believe the reasons for going to war are just, and I believe the world is a better place without Saddam, but our leadership is entirely unfit to wage war. They are unfortunately “Empty Suits”. Only a leader formed in the mold of George Patton will lead us to victory. Until then, we will continue to see our soldiers die for a failing cause.

The Beatles Were Wrong: We Need More Than Love

I don’t want to be one of those people that blames the Baby Boomers for everything. I look at my own parents and find it hard to believe there aren’t great Boomers out there producing, working hard, and carrying on the valuable vestiges of the Greatest Generation. But one of the more irritating facets of this generation is this radical sense of idealism that leads to paramount levels of impatience. Though Gens X and Y clearly do not share this idealism (it seems to have been replaced by cynicism if not outright pessimism), the impatience passed down by Boomers has officially been diagnosed as ADD/ADHD/etc. The theme song of for the Boomers teenage years, “All You Need is Love” turned out to be a daydream, a fanciful notion that never quite panned out as planned. Just ask The Beatles.

To function successfully in the world, we need more than love, or we at least need love properly understood. Often, I find that when those in my generation speak of love, they have either learned to cling to their parent’s (or the culture’s) romantic notions of love, or have rejected it wholeheartedly. But love is an enterprise in sacrifice more than the living out of a gut feeling. The problem with gut feelings, or the kind of love the pop artists tend to sing about, is that gut feelings change as do life circumstances. It strikes me that if The Beatles were singing about love as sacrifice, love as joy, or about love adapting and evolving to life’s curveballs, they would have been dead-on.

But I’m not sure the Boomers took it that way. This was their time, they were the generation that was going to prove their parents’ Depression-era advice wrong, they were finally going to have their cake and eat it too. All they needed was love. If they could just corral their good intentions into some sort of policy, we could finally achieve the utopia that we have been on the verge of achieving for centuries, but could never quite make it. The Boomers would achieve what so many other generations couldn’t.

This sort of daydreaming led to scores of failed policies from conception to implementation. The easiest examples are the economic policies that actually helped the pre-welfare poor were scrapped in favor of massive spending that made the problem worse. The unintended consequences of government growth and/or action were never thoughtfully considered by the Boomers and their legislators. I’m no foreign policy expert, but a continued weakness in how we wage/win war is, I think, a byproduct of this idealism run amok. War, at best, is a necessary evil, and daydreaming about it leads to second-guessing that only makes the problem worse.

But secular society isn’t the only place this motto has been adopted. I find my own church body (and similar church bodies) operating within this idealistic model, which, of course, in many ways is true. The Bible is clearly full of endorsements of love: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son,” from St. John or “But now abide in faith, hope, love, these three; and the greatest of these is love” from St. Paul. (These are the “greatest hits” of bible verses on love, and for good reason.) But when scripture speaks of love, I find that it can be a different understanding from what even the church calls love.

A recent television advertisement (is this what evangelism has become?) by the United Church of Christ (UCC) utilizes the slogan, “Jesus didn’t turn people away. Neither do we,” implying that the key feature of the UCC is that it is welcoming of all people, just as Jesus was. Whatever your lifestyle, we welcome you. Other mainline churches have similar advertising slogans, making sure the general non-churchgoing public knows that they are welcome. Fine, but is that all the Church is about? It seems that beneath all of this is the mantra, “All you need is love.” What about the law? What about virtue? What about living out our faith? What about sacrifice, carrying the cross, all that good stuff?

It’s probably not a good career move for me to seemingly place myself at odds with Jesus, which I don’t see myself doing at all. But I’ve found if you criticize the love-only model of the faith, you’re quickly labeled a legalist. I just want to accurately define what we mean by grace and love, not only within our personal relationships, but also our sacred and even secular institutions. The idealism of needing love and love alone has gotten us into trouble, not because the intentions were bad, but because the warmest, fuzziest blanket statement “All you need is love” is just too good to let go when the policy proves a failure. Give me two people who merely like each other but agree in principle as to what marriage is about and I would wager there marriage would be more successful than a couple wildly in love who has immature views of marriage. The same is true for a moral society. It’s great that we should all love each other. But how do we live together in the meantime?

"You Must Watch This Tape!": Truth in Documentaries

Under most circumstances I try to avoid getting into political debates with my friends. For one thing, politics is a serious matter for most people, and I prefer to make time with my friends as enjoyable as possible. Another aspect of political debates is that they are often adversarial, since many of my friends share an opposite point of view. It becomes futile to persuade a few of my friends who are distrustful of any facts I provide, arguing that whether information comes from a government agency or widely read news sources, a hidden agenda corrupts it all anyway. Thus statistics on the job market from the Department of Labor are suspect because they are supposedly influenced by the current presidential administration. News stories and other tidbits from network news broadcasts are to be doubted because they are all owned by a handful of large private corporations. Somehow the editors and news anchors are forced to tow the corporate line, which always seems to favor powerful business against the powerless. Facts matter little to such people, even as they insist that truth on an issue does exist.

What is ironic is that those who doubt factual data never hesitate to embrace information from the most subjective forms of media. One good friend of mine was proud not to watch the news nor read the papers, but he was eager to watch any video handed to him from his politically like-minded friends. Every time I began to lay out my position on a particular topic, he was quick to reply by declaring: “I have this tape!” This tape was supposed to validate his argument, as if an amateurishly edited thirty-minute video funded with a limited budget by a partisan non-profit organization was the only thing that articulated the truth on any issue. Having watched a few of these tapes I asked him how such footage could be less agenda-driven than other media he was so quick to reject. The explanation he offered was that these tapes were purposefully clandestine to avoid censorship and suppression from the almighty media and government agencies out to stamp out dissent. There was something quite romantic that captivated my friend’s interest, having exclusive access to the “truth” and organizing below the surface with other people through camaraderie.

In high school I took a class on television production. Our final project was to create a music video, using camera, audio and editing equipment owned by the school. I remember the hours spent in the editing room, using these bulky editing machines to splice footage in a clean sequence to better express the meaning of Pink Floyd’s “The Wall”. One thing anyone knows about the production of videos is the tremendous amount of editing, the importance of montage in developing a narrative and the oodles of footage that never make the final cut. Video is an art form that must stimulate the viewer’s interest quickly, and its linear sequence of action requires that the information is as effectively condensed as possible. Such condensation from editing makes videos prone to leaving out lots of important information, making it a comparatively poor resource for inquiry compared to journal publications, books or the internet. Therefore, of all the sources of information one could use to build a valid argument, the last thing one would ever want to cite is a video.

A video documentary is mostly an argument made with an assortment of facts, interviews, images and music. Unlike many people’s inept rhetorical skills, a carefully crafted video feeds on the viewers’ psychological impulses to deliver a convincing explanation and possible solutions to a problem. But since all documentaries are heavily subjected to editing, one cannot help but wonder what kind of useful information was left out. A documentary often tests the limits to which one can make a compelling argument with as few facts as possible, using visual aids instead raw data and deep analysis.

That is why I almost never watch documentaries at a movie theater. I go to be entertained, not informed. If I wanted to be informed I would read about an issue rather than rely on a documentary filmmaker’s deliberately composed jumble of footage and hand-picked facts. A person who uses these documentaries as the factual basis for their argument are basically using someone else’s argument in the form of a video to make his her own argument. This isn’t making one’s own mind on an issue by carefully constructing a logic than it is a simple matter of repeating someone else’s more visually elaborate view on the topic at hand. Between “Farenheit 9-11” and an esoteric, brooding French film I choose the latter. Even if a more conservative documentary were on offer, I would still prefer watching French actors smoke while contemplating their anxieties in life. At least a fictional art film can potentially reveal far more about the truth behind the human condition than best intentioned documentary.

What is really at the bottom of why certain people cannot distinguish good objective information from the subjective kind has to do with the way we perceive truth. To many people truth and fact are unrelated. Truth often consists of an almost spiritual zeal, the way the world should work. Facts are inanimate fragments of information that can be manipulated to simply serve truth. The facts are made to fit the truth, not vice versa. Thus, a video documentary is mostly an exposition of a particular truth. To appreciate a documentary is not to praise its skillful exposition of an issue in general, but to agree with the film-maker’s truth. If the film’s truth is opposite to the viewer, the label of propaganda is used to discredit it.

Indeed documentaries are produced with the goal of informing the viewers. But rarely is it to provide a broad balanced view of a topic. It seems that the more a film is driven by the desire to make money, as in a theatrical release, for example, the more it is less concerned with balance as it is seeking viewers who share in the stated truths of the film. Interestingly, I find documentaries made for public television less concerned about preaching a truth than to simply describe all aspects of an issue in a seemingly fair way. What I hope that people who seek information should know, is that if one wants to really understand an issue, one first has to acknowledge that things are often too complex to understand from one point of view. One has to then do the work in researching and comparing all sorts of facts, and all the while, avoid subscribing too quickly to any sort of truth.

A clear-headed view of what many video documentaries make the most recent revelations regarding Michael Moore’s practice of highly selective editing completely unsurprising. His intent was never to illustrate the War on Terror and Iraq as complicated subjects requiring complete investigative detachment. Rather, Mr. Moore was laying out to the audience his truth in as clean a narrative as possible, from the purported relations between the President and the Saudis to the supposed desperation of American soldiers in Iraq to the apparent joy of Iraqi citizens under Saddam Hussein. If it demanded that he take out of context the words of an armeless veteran to reinforce the truth of his narrative, than so be it. To him, sharing his truth to viewers who are eager to accept any kind of truth was well worth the difficulty in necessarily twisting the facts.

In the end, searching for a truth on any serious topic is more of an emotional response than an empirical one. Facts are what they are. But to film editors, facts are what we choose them to be, and how they can be embellished results into their distortion in service of a “truth”.

For a complementary take on this issue, Patrick Hynes makes some good observations.
Hattip: Instapundit

“Social Justice” is a Misnomer: Consider “Social Mercy” Instead

Those who dedicate their lives to certain social and political causes often refer to their genre of work as “social justice.” Especially for those who work on behalf of the homeless, immigrants, refugees, and the general down-and-out, social justice has become a catch phrase for various initiatives that often involves calls for redistribution of wealth, broad government programs, and a minimum if not living wage. “Social justice”, as a stream of political thought, seems to have picked up steam in the past decade or so (especially during the Bush administration) as many on the left feared “draconian” cuts to the budget were on the way. It turned out to be quite the contrary. But who’s counting?

When the most recent massive federal budget was passed by a Republican congress, mainline church denominations called the budget “immoral” because of its “cuts” to certain social programs. (I also agree the budget was immoral, but because the lack of substantive cuts allow dehumanizing dependency on the welfare state to persist.) The language goes something as follows: “By passing this immoral budget, Congress has made it clear that social justice is not a priority.” Or, “President Bush, who once touted ‘compassionate conservatism,’ has proved himself to be opposed to serious social justice fiscal policy.” Or some such sentiment. I won’t go into all of the reasons I think these sorts of statements are wrong, but I will start by saying that the word “justice” is poorly understood. And for the record, government clearly has a role in providing for the welfare of those who cannot provide for themselves. The question is not if, but how much.

“Social justice” in many circles means “equal outcome”. When I hear activists speak of “justice”, the ideas espoused are communistic to the core, and the speakers are interested more in guaranteeing equal distribution of wealth more than equal opportunity to earn. The etymology of “justice” never suggests, however, that equal outcome is a guarantee. To be “just” is not necessarily to be compassionate, kind, or to turn the other cheek. Being just is, by definition, an objective venture that may appear to be cold-hearted. Fairness by the rule of law is the only criteria. A judge in any courtroom is not in the compassion or forgiveness business. He (or she) is in the judgment business, which may mean he rules against a very nice man who unintentionally committed a crime as much as he rules in favor of a cold-blooded killer whose home was illegally searched. That’s justice: cold, unfeeling, legalistic.

But if justice comes to mean equal outcome, then we are in for a long haul when the shadow side of overusing this word comes to fruition: justice demands a monopoly because it acts in an objective manner. So when we attach “justice” to a cause, rightly or wrongly, we are tacitly recognizing that this call must get accomplished in the name of all that is right in the world. If “justice” calls for a welfare state, who are we to deny it? If “justice” calls for the top 5% of wage earners to foot the bill for the other 95%, who are we to say no?

Justice has a powerful voice that drowns out reason, logic, and desire. Actions must be taken, vows must be broken, change must occur in the name of justice. Justice works on a different level than our emotions, so it has the ability to call us to something higher. So when justice speaks, it carries a seemingly objective weight behind it that implies that if society doesn’t listen, it is committing a grave sin. That’s why pseudo-communists use the word: they are hanging onto an old understanding of the word that was appropriate at other times in history, but now is being perverted to tell us how unfair society is by not creating equal outcome.

So when I hear this phrase, “social justice,” I toddle between irritation at the communistic values that underpin the phrase and laughter because of the complete lack of etymological sensitivity to what “justice” actually is. At a theological level, for example, I have no doubt that God is a just god. But Christians believe that God is more than merely just; God is also merciful. Mercy is a very different concept from justice. Mercy is full of compassion; it is grace incarnate. It is looking at your neighbor as one who may not deserve help, but should receive it anyway. If we looked at our neighbor from a perspective of justice, we could find many reasons not to help them. Justice might even demand that we don’t. But hopefully, we look on others with mercy, not justice.

Mercy also only has as much power as the person doing it. Because it is voluntary, its power is limited to the person showing mercy. Mercy is hard to rally, politicize or generate votes. It’s doing the right thing for its own sake. So I advocate the phrase “social mercy” over “social justice,” because if nothing else, it is not so pompous as to assume that communism is the only way to achieve a loving society. If justice ruled our hearts more than mercy, none of us would come out alive.

A final thought on what this social mercy looks like. The father of “compassionate conservatism,” Marvin Olasky, has written extensively on this, especially in “The Tragedy of American Compassion.” In sum, mercy towards others is best achieved at a local level. It involves truly helping people by works of kindness, not merely federal money. And mercy involves an honest acknowledgement of the power of sin, instead of a steady paycheck that may enable bad behavior. I only ask that when we speak about justice, we be careful what we ask for. Justice may only be kind to us a long time from now.

Media, Waste and What Works

Real Clear Politics links to Lou Dolinar’s account of the rescue efforts during and after the passing of Hurricane Katrina. Along with Congress’s report evaluating the emergency response at all federal levels, I can’t help but be convinced that such a vast natural disaster shows why larger government doesn’t improve anything. FEMA collapsed under the pressure, fraud was rampant in awarding reconstruction contracts and issuing debit cards, and the Army Corps of Engineers took no responsibility in the faulty construction of the canal walls. Dolinar extensively highlights the impressive achievements of the government services that did indeed worked: the coalition of armed forces. In the whole wretched ordeal that was Katrina, the most visible glimpses of hope that I caught while watching the news coverage was the skillful and tireless efforts of coast-guard helicopters. I found interesting yet unsurprising that the media, which was eager to celebrate the efforts of police officers and fire-fighters after 9-11, seemed to give short shrift to the amazing rescues of the coast-guard. Somehow, even with tremendous competence at the local level surrounding, television cameras were more eager to broadcast scenes of chaotic disorder and misery.

The media’s myopia seems to have completely missed on the national guard’s efforts in coordinating rescue and evacuation efforts right in front of their noses at the Superdome. Dolinar’s article provides necessary details on these mostly non-reported efforts, whose success at maintaining a semblance of order helps explain how the rumors around what happened around the superdome were completely false. Beginning with the Indian Ocean tsunami a year and a half ago and then with the Pakistani earthquakes, it was clear that the armed forces could demonstrate not only that they can generally be a forced for good, but also a force that works. It is the only organization I have seen whose efficiency in managing through crises is unparalleled. After all, if you were one of the millions of unfortunate people afflicted by a civil war or an unmitigated natural disaster, which would you rather hope to have: the U.N. blue helmets or American officers?

The last institution I would ever rely on as a last resort is a bloated governmental bureaucracy. They have shown time and again how incapable they are in the face of emergencies or other tenuous situations. Whether it’s in the rebuilding of Iraqi infrastructure or the setting up of medical relief in far-flung places, organizations like USAID or the United Nations respond with near-scandalous lethargy and obscene financial profligacy. I find it difficult to recall when the contrary has ever taken place with such institutions. Even with large non-profits like the American Red Cross, I carry a sense of regret that I don’t have the option of donating directly to military efforts that are fare more potent in relieving crises. Sure I pay my taxes, but sometimes I think our armed forces have a lot more to show for their achievements in humanitarian relief than their share in government revenue. Considering the various things I pay for and support, I expect lots of waste by government that will fritter away the actual effectiveness of my monetary contribution.

But somehow I’m convinced that most taxpayers would gladly want more of their money frittered away by bureaucratic wastefulness and incompetence. After all, the general legislative response to intelligence failures such as 9-11 was to add a brand-new bureaucratic department under the guise of Homeland Security, coupled with several additional tiers of various directors of intelligence (which apparently contributed to an irresolvable inter-departmental turf battle that ousted CIA chief Porter Goss), and the massive nationalization of airport security that has failed to substantially improve passenger safety.

I’m afraid that if there was a mildly believable proposal to expand the powers of a government bureaucracy established to confront natural disasters, most voters would not hesitate to support it. All the while when there are clear examples of state-based institutions accomplishing far more with a more efficient use of resources. There’s no reason government bureaucracies could not adopt the mentality and tactics of the armed forces that enable better overall functioning. I for one would not bat an eye if our armed forces developed additional capacities that could eliminate the need for many of the government-run social and humanitarian agencies. Just cut one’s losses and ride the winning horse.

The media should not only report what fails, but also what succeeds. It maintains its critical stance to inform us why something has gone wrong. But the media should also inform us why something goes wright, so that its viewers will make more prudent decisions on how to government should spend their money. Otherwise our current disconnect between the problem and solution remains, deluding many of us to throw money at a problem with little consideration on actual effectiveness.

The “Da Vinci” Boon: Whatever Doesn’t Kill the Church Will Only Make it Stronger

For someone who fits the mold of the exact person to get irate about “The Da Vinci Code,” I find myself remarkably bored by the whole thing. As a person who loves order, who respects traditional Christian authorities, and who tends to lean on the truth as revealed throughout the ages, I am the perfect person to call for boycotts to this film. Yet, not only do I find myself unworried about it, I find the whole enterprise to be quite harmless.

That being said, I won’t support the movie, and I have encouraged others not to see it. I am a capitalist after all, and I try to put my money where my mouth is. I did read the book, so I am familiar with the arguments of the story, silly as they may be. But even if everyone I told not to see the film did, I wouldn’t feel betrayed, or even worried for several reasons. For one, from what I can tell from reviews, the book does not adapt well to the screen. The huge lumps in logic are great for reading on a rainy day; the suspension of disbelief is just easier in our imagination compared to a realization of it on film. It seems that all of a sudden, many critics realized how silly the storyline was after all once seeing it in "real life". Hence the reports of heckling. Given audience critiques are not much better, it seems many viewers agree.

Second, no amount of speculation, revision, or derision will kill the Church. I admit that “Da Vinci” and its fruits can have a harmful affect on the believer by producing seeds of doubt and mistrust in the Church. (The Church often does a good enough job of this on its own!) I recognize that when something is this culturally popular, it is easy to get swept away in its nonsense instead of wrapped up in historic wisdom. It can be a lot more comfortable for a short while, too. But “Da Vinci” is just another in a long line of heresies that traditionally have invigorated the Church and forced it to define itself over and against the culture time and time again. I might go so far as to say Dan Brown has done a certain amount of good for the Church, because this debate will help the Church define what it is.

Underlying all this is this point: the number of people who worship on Sunday morning, or even the number of people who would identify themselves as Christian is irrelevant when talking about the Church. The true Church is made up of those who believe, be it 100 people or 100 million people. (There always has been and always will be disputes about what exactly to believe, and here I’ll rely on the Apostles or Nicene Creeds.) The history of Christianity is full of moments when the wheat is separated from the chaff, and “Da Vinci” is just another moment in a long line of them that allows the Church to define itself even more loudly, and believers to stand out from the derision found in secular culture. If “Da Vinci” has a negative impact on the numbers of the faithful, it will be unfortunate, but the Church will go on.

This book and film are just another example of secular forces pushing historic Christianity to the margins, considering it antiquated and a harmful venture in mass deceit. Maybe it’s the Lutheran in me, but I see this as a net positive. Like recessions are good for economies from time to time, the Church needs to be reminded that we are not always welcome. The great mistake of the medieval Church was that it felt society should revolve around it, and made no distinctions between itself and the world. Thus, it became corrupt and has only itself to blame for Luther and all of his unintended consequences. The Church being pushed to the margins is nothing to fear from the Church’s viewpoint, because the Church will survive. It’s the world that will bear the costs.

Finally, Dan Brown is not the kryptonite, and the Church is not Superman. Rather, a better analogy might be Da Vinci’s Vitruvian Man: the Church is perfectly symmetrical, bearing the promise of life in a dead world; it has a clear center in Christ; and the Church is the intersection of the material world with the spiritual, as Da Vinci’s square and circle represent.

Houston, We Don't Have a Problem

After New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago, very few people could name America’s fourth most populated city. Houston is indeed a very large city, though it fails to possess any cultural cache like other major cities. It certainly doesn’t contain a stunning architectural heritage like New York or Chicago, nor does it generate an unmistakable cultural identity like Los Angeles. Houston thrives on unglamorous industries like energy, medicine and its port. It is relatively spread out, like most major cities in the South and West, with leafy suburban neighborhoods appearing not far from the downtown area itself. In addition, the roadways are extensive, at times appearing redundant with ramps to highway, toll ways and everything in between. Houston has a road budget equal to the larger states in the U.S. It is definitely not nearly as pedestrian friendly as many Northeastern cities.

What makes Houston unique is the fact there is next to no zoning. This lends an urban landscape of seemingly random towers intermingled with small apartment blocks, sprawling mansions, and working class cottages in one big jumble. It is possible to have the shadow of a thirty-story tower over your private back yard. It also contributes to an initial sense of confusion to newcomers, not knowing which cluster of towers is downtown, since its Medical district and swank up-town at the outskirts of the city feature impressive high-rises of their own. And yet, as soon as you can identify where downtown is, navigating oneself in the Houston is quite easy since tall landmarks that dot the city’s vast expanse are visible from any street several miles away. For example, if you spot a twin set of towers that resemble big syringes, then that marks the Medical City (which is undoubtedly the most impressive self-contained medical complex in the world). If you see Philip Johnson’s lone sixty-story crystalline tower with a revolving spotlight (at night), then you have located the Galleria district, with its extensive shopping mall surrounded by offices and hotels, along with high end condominiums for the city’s young urban professionals. Houston’s central business district is punctuated by Philip Johnson’s post-modern design experiments, sheathed in elegant curtain wall glass. (actually, Houston was truly the great architect’s little playground, as his designs large and small are everywhere…)

My home city of Dallas is similar to its bigger brother in many respects, possessing similar looking districts, complete with a Galleria and Medical City. And yet, Dallas is far more carefully zoned, with uses quite clearly defined that results in a more identifiable urban pattern. Uptown is close to an unmistakably unique downtown skyline, surrounded by an interrupted sea of suburban style neighborhoods, broken up by carefully located commercial strip shopping centers. There are no random towers punctuating the landscape, as they are mostly relegated along the major exrpressways and are limited in height. Any visible cluster of towers seen from far away indicates the central business districts of surrounding municipalities. And yet I’ve been told that Houstonians pay attention to any major developments going on in its slightly smaller rival in North Texas. If Dallas gets an award-winning concert hall, then Houston has to match it; if nearby Fort Worth has Louis Kahn’s Kimbel Museum, then Houston catches up with Renzo Piano’s Menil Museum, only for Dallas to hire the same architect for its new Sculpture museum. Not long after Dallas established a major light-rail system for itself did Houston introduce its own line, with more futuristic-looking trains.

And yet, I find Houston a far more interesting and lively city. The very fact that it lacks the kind zoning that gives Dallas its visual consistency in turn creates a more dynamic and diverse environment. Driving along Houston’s streets presents itself with unexpected surprises, where within a mile one can pass by luxurious storefronts, a quiet leafy neighborhood, alterna-grunge restaurants, a stark office high-rise, a university campus, and an ethnic grocery store. The Menil museum finds itself not in an arts precinct notorious for their deadness throughout the day, but in the middle of a neighborhood of middle-class cottage houses. NIMBYism is sort of a foreign concept in Houston, in that choosing to live in the city requires that anything can happen near your back yard. If you don’t like it this way, there are numerous outlying suburbs. And even then, some suburbs have a particular character of their own, showcasing huge immigrant populations from around the world. The Houston area, like its three larger rivals, is a major destination for immigrants. It succeeds in assimilating immigrants quite well, and provides a comparably flexible environment in which to start up a business. Housing is affordable, taxes are minimal and the job-market is plentiful for any newcomer to get started. Houston seems a bit more entrepreneurial than my hometown by simply noticing that chain stores seem to compete with a large number of family-operated outfits, selling goods from many old low-rent buildings.

What this urban messiness gives is a particular identity with which Houstonians should proudly associate. It is very tolerant place, where homeowners are for the most part free to build whatever house they would like on their plot without having to worry about what the neighbors think. The restaurants feature an impressive culinary variety, and cater to all classes and lifestyles. Certain parts of Houston remind me of the laid-back streets of Austin, with its bohemian establishments and its heterogeneous assortment of buildings along the street. Yet Houston, by its large size and international significance, is far more ethnically mixed than Austin could ever be (which for all of its liberal pretense is probably the most segregated city in the state). Houston is particularly capable of absorbing strangers, as the events following Hurricane Katrina attest. Nearly a quarter of a million evacuees sought refuge in Houston, and citizens pulled together the resources to accommodate them. It proved that the city could be mobilized as a whole despite its sprawling nature.

Houston will never be regarded as a picturesque destination for tourists. It is not beautiful in any traditional sense, even as it contains very attractive and scenic corners here and there. Its very existence is the antithesis to good urban planning. When I reviewed the architectural journals coming from the city’s architecture schools several years ago, a frequent point of departure in the articles was that Houston was a problem that desperately needed to be solved. There was no efficient public transportation, no significant historic districts nor a coherent unified system of parks and indeed no visual harmony. What these journals seemed to ignore was the reality that is Houston: an agglomeration of urban villages governed by an amiable laissez-faire ethos and an ever-changing ethno-cultural makeup. And it all somehow works. It shows no hesitation to remake its landscape, whether by expanding roadways or inserting towers regardless of what views have been eliminated. Its narrower network of artery roads (with only four lanes compared to the typically six lanes in Dallas), do not abet the smooth flow of traffic, but it provides a more comfortable and intimate scale of for its streetscapes. Architectural styles are less conformist, too, and therefore it is easier to find true gems along any street, none of which impose a uniformity of style common in the most picturesque of cities. It is this very disorderly quality that makes this city quite stimulating for me. I wouldn’t mind living there, but the humidity is pretty thick in the air there.

A longtime immigrant resident of Houston admitted to me that her home is truly a city without a memory. Its people thus live for the sake of building a future.

What Many Rightly Think of the Church: It’s Self-Help in the Language of God

Dovetailing corbrusier’s post below about our culture of self-esteem, I can’t help but chime in on the embarrassment I feel when I hear what popular preachers are saying. The culture of self-esteem has so engrained our language that many in the church have adopted it as the gospel itself, disguising the power of faith in the “power of positive thinking.” It embarrasses me because these preachers do not see the way they are spreading a false gospel, and furthering the myth that we can achieve salvation or joy on our own. In short, they spread completely secular ideas couched in enough “religious” language to “legitimize” it. It’s sickening.

Being a Protestant, I can’t help but sympathize when Catholics lump all Protestants into the camp of the televangelists like Joel Osteen, Bishop TD Jakes or Harvest Church’s Rod Parsley. Many Catholics I know just assume that if you’re not Catholic, you attend a mega-church, consider the sacraments optional, and preach a self-esteem mantra instead of Paul’s message of “Christ crucified.” Paul wasn’t well-received by the Corinthians when he spoke this particular gospel, and undoubtedly if the preachers of today spoke as much about what we could do for Jesus instead of what he can do for us, they would be just as poorly received.

And I’m not saying Catholics get it right all the time either (who am I to say who gets it right?). Catholics invented the polka mass after all. But the Roman Church has a better, and more unified understanding of the role of the church in the world. Do we hear Pope Benedict XVI speak of self-esteem? No, he’s too busy speaking about the role of the church in destroying the “dictatorship of relativism.” Do we hear the Roman Church preach on relationships and self-image problems? I haven’t, but I generally hear them preach on the appointed texts.

What’s really interesting to me is not just that so many pastors have adopted the self-esteem gospel, but how much pastors and secular self-esteem icons are starting to resemble one another. The pictures above make it clear that Oprah and Joel Osteen’s messages are essentially the same. But pastors are not only becoming self-esteem boosters, Oprah is apparently heading up a religion these days. Consider these quotes from a recent USA Today article on the religion of Oprah:

"Oprah Winfrey has risen to a new level of guru. She's no longer just a successful talk-show host worth $1.4 billion. Over the past year, Winfrey, 52, has emerged as a spiritual leader for the new millennium, a moral voice of authority for the nation."

“Love her or loathe her…Winfrey reaches more people in a TV day than most preachers can hope to reach in a lifetime of sermons.”

“In a November poll conducted at Beliefnet.com, a site that looks at how religions and spirituality intersect with popular culture, 33% of 6,600 respondents said Winfrey has had "a more profound impact" on their spiritual lives than their clergypersons.”

What we get from this confusion of roles in culture is a tragic dilution of the truth, a distortion of the gospel, and a weakening of the Word of God that, by the way, holds far more power than helping us feel good about ourselves. I have already written that I think self-help leads to self-hate because it leads us down a narcissistic road that is ultimately futile. But the USA Today article along with corbrusier’s piece gets to the core of the limitations of the self-help movement: it has turned us into 30-year-old children who look for God, the government, or society -at-large to be our sugar daddy.

A final irritation: Osteen (and his cronies) and Oprah have the luxury of preaching their gospel of self-esteem without doing any work in the trenches. They can seem to hold all the answers for self-fulfillment, but when their answers reach their inevitable dead end, who is there to clean up their mess? If those who are broken because of their futility (a condition we all must admit eventually) even know where to turn, an entirely different theology will have to be presented, one based on the real human condition of sin, and one that does not make easy promises. I wonder if after years of the self-esteem gospel, they will want to hear it?

Looking back on Billy Graham’s sermons, we should be careful to never lump today’s self-help pastors with him. He preached very biblical sermons, made explicit reference to Jesus Christ, distinguished law and gospel, and was never afraid to speak of our brokenness and weakness as a fallen humanity. He had a different luxury from today’s self-esteem preachers: he did not have to maintain a congregation, and the bulk of his sermons are aimed at getting non-believers to believe, not to maintain a life of faith. But Osteen, and even Oprah, are not the descendents of famous preachers like Billy Graham. They are thieves in the night, wolves in sheep’s clothing, inventors of an entirely new, and utterly false gospel.

Some Misanthropic Thoughts

The current media unrest brought about by the rising cost of gasoline painfully reminds me how many Americans are willing to whine about anything they don’t like. We pretend that Americans in general are rugged individualists, who eschew government intervention in favor of private initiative and gumption. Somehow, it seems that the more prosperous we become the more frequent we whine over the smallest things. It’s already widely agreed that as a society grows wealthier, the experience of depression and other kinds of mental illness become more frequent.

Along with this development, I sense that our prosperity leads us to lose perspective on what is truly important. I’m not necessarily referring to the common critique against the corrupting effect mass consumption and materialism has on the individual soul. Rather I find that richer we all get, the less intellectually responsible we become. Somehow we forego the exercise of really thinking through what we believe and why we believe, and how it connects to how the world works. We become lazy in evaluating cause and effect, how a decision made earlier will affect the outcome later. Thus we have no trouble in articulating what we’re for, but few of us are capable of explaining what should precisely happen when we implement our desires. This disconnect infers the Law of Unintended Consequences, where certain unforeseen results discredit a policy’s intentions. Why do these things happen?

Because taking responsibility for your positions is a lot of work and fraught with the fear of being proven wrong, one the most terrible things to happen to a person raised in a culture of self-esteem. As our concerns turn from matters of self-preservation and survival, which were very real to all generations born before Baby Boomers, we younger generations have had the luxury (or dread) to focus on our own emotions and psychological needs. The cult of self-esteem is an inevitable result of this introspective shift, one that has had the side affect of valuing knowledge as it pertains emotional needs.

The survivalist mentality of prior generations required a sense of perspective of the world around, as one needed to cooperate with others to get the things one needed to survive on, from food and shelter, to the emotional support of the community. Most people then were too busy worrying about their next meal to instead wallow in isolation meditating on what one’s purpose of life should be and who one was as a special individual. Transcending self-preservation has unfortunately not freed many of us to seek knowledge about the outside world leisurely. Rather, we become more obsessed about our inner world while we cut ourselves off from understanding how we fit with the world at large.

This isn’t to argue that most people in the distant past were more informed about the world beyond than we are today but I get the sense that to be ‘worldly’ was an aspiration to all who could. Nowadays the desire to know about how the outside world works is seen as un-necessary if it doesn’t relate to one’s job. To educate oneself about irrelevant subjects is seen as being a geek or unnecessarily wonkish, and much suspicion is made of dilettantes. But somehow, there is no limit to how much one should contemplate about feelings, relationships, and determining what makes one happy.

If there is any knowledge about things beyond one’s private life, it’s often celebrity gossip, which conveniently serves a mirror to the concerns and interpersonal squabbles that consume most people. Celebrities’ flaws and personal tribulations are frequently identified and compared to by people everywhere, as if one’s sense of worth is determined how much better off they are compared to someone who is much more famous. Call me strange but I find few people that I can identify with in terms of personality and behavior. Somehow I prefer to understand the ways I fit into a broader system of relationships, whether by politics, economics, or history. Probing my connection to the various mechanisms that govern the outside world I live in is a lifelong endeavor. Meditating introspectively arrives quickly to a dead end and bores me as a result. Like Relievedebtor, I’m not terribly interested in what Self-Help authors have to say and Oprah and Dr. Phil seem to rehash simple truism about finding happiness in life it feels like a waste of time.

I know there will be few takers to my suggestion, but I wonder how many people will achieve greater personal contentment by embarking exploring history, economics, philosophy, the cosmos, or even general sciences for laymen like basics geology, astronomy, or ecology. My suggestion relates to the common advice of taking up a hobby to relieve boredom. But it entails a bit more than creating or collecting something of delight. It demands one to develop confidence in dealing with outside forces that will affect his or her life and to distinguish what information is important and which reaction is appropriate or not.

When I see how our politicians in both major parties stoke emotional reactions towards the high price of gasoline, I realize it’s only natural since their constituencies seem to respond in the same way. Whining, which is now considered a healthy way of letting go of one’s bottled up frustrations, has now become a trigger response to anything that doesn’t go our way, whether it’s gas prices, the state of the Iraq war, or on own economic well-being.

Whining is a self-centered activity, in which the whiner casts him or herself as the victim or makes victims out of others to assuage one’s own guilt on an issue. This self-centeredness often blocks one’s attempts in understanding issues abstractly, apart from one’s own personal experience with the issue at hand. For example, instead of finding out how gas prices (or prices of any commodity) are determined, many Americans have the propensity to first complain that gas is unjustly priced, and quickly assume that prices are arbitrarily created in order to make you a victim.

I notice that beliefs in conspiracies has a lot to do with an emotional perspective on a problem, where it isn’t about random cause and effect as it is about arraying a system to precisely cause hurt and pain to others. Somehow the oil companies go out of their way make life as difficult as possible to its customers for the simple fact that oilmen are nasty good ol’ boys. I’m struck by how little is said about the huge number of individuals, each with their own values, hopes and fears, who work for these oil companies for their livelihood, and who simply want to do the best job they can regardless of what market prices are for gasoline. These people don’t work monolithically for a common corporate purpose to simply screw as many customers as possible.

Whining also implies a person’s sense of entitlement. Victims naturally require some form of restitution. Thus if one complains that high gas prices are unfair, it follows that he or she is entitled to better prices by virtue that he is less able to consume as much gas as he used to. I suspect such feeling of being ‘owed’ something is tied to high self-esteem, that you matter to such a high degree that open dynamic phenomena like economic cycles, prices, and even the weather should somehow make a special effort fit your needs. Thus one is so self-absorbed in trying to soothingly explain how a problem affects them personally that they fail to actually identify the problem by itself, and neglect to figure out rational solutions over useless emotional band-aids. The current rhetoric on all sides regarding gas prices is embarrassingly vacuous, each political pitch designed to exacerbate emotional tensions in the public, with little mention of the way gasoline is made where the price comes from.

But what can I expect when knowledge in basic macro and micro-economics and civics is woefully missing among the majority of Americans? The ignorance supposedly ‘educated’ young people of the way the broader world works is staggering. They can’t find Afghanistan on a map nor can they explain the concept of supply and demand, but they sure can tell you all about how great they feel, what they own, and numerous ways to spice up one’s sex life.

The most dangerous thing about whining is that it is infantile. Children, having no ability to solve problems, only know that complaining or crying will somehow change the situation for the better. When adults whine, they too are incapable of solving a problem realistically, but yet know that by doing something, even if it isn’t evident that such a thing will work, is better than doing nothing at all. Children have the excuse of not having yet the cognition to understanding why something is wrong, but adults do not. Children put all of their trust in an authority figure (their parent) to sort out the problem for them. Should infantile adults do likewise with their political leaders in the face of serious problems? After all, dictatorships often consist of a political authority treating their subjects as children, complete with privileges that can be arbitrarily taken away and the main decisions of your life being made by the care-taker government with little personal involvement. Dictatorships thrive more on people’s emotions than on their intellectual sophistication. I fear that the emphasis on emotional well-being in our culture bodes ill to our ability to make prudent decisions in the future on the job of governing.

We Can’t Handle the Truth

When Jack Nicholson yelled “You can’t handle the truth!” to a feckless attorney played by Tom Cruise in “A Few Good Men,” he was essentially playing a straw man who represented everything wrong with the US military: it was run by a good ol’ boy posse intent on undermining the law, and it played by its own rules, which included torture and murder. Nicholson’s Col. Nathan Jessep was a man not in tune with modern notions of justice, and the consequence was a burst of his own truth that reflected what he had noticed for some time, but could never say. But what if Jessep, though no role model for morality, instinctively saw a weakness in the affluent American mentality, a weakness that could not handle, and would not accept the truth?

When I hear the way politicians pander to voters, I hear them coddling the soft underbelly of America that must live lives in avoidance of the truth. What are the truths politicians/the media can no longer talk about without fear of reprisal from a spoiled electorate/consumers? Here are the biggest:

1. War is messy. Victor Davis Hanson has already said what needs to be said on this. He points out that we expect a perfect War on Terror, a war without casualties, without bad decisions, without repercussions. This desire for a “clean” war flies in the face of both logic and history. Because we can’t handle the truth that war is messy, we are compromised in how we fight it, more as police action than war. If we can’t handle that war is messy, we will make it longer than necessary.

2. That our lifestyles may have to change as the world advances. The good news is that the world is advancing, that fewer people live in hunger and poverty, and the standard of living is generally on the rise throughout the world. The bad news is that there will be some temporary costs to the United States, mainly in the way of energy prices, but also in trade deficits to communist China. It is clearly possible that our standard of living can rise simultaneously as the world’s standard of living rises, but it may rise at a slower rate. That we can’t handle this truth is most easily seen in politician’s lame attempts to pander to our fears that gas prices are up for good. No amount of pandering will change supply and demand rules of economics, and it’s time we face that our lifestyles will likely change as the world advances.

3. That we are a sovereign nation, whose responsibilities lie to our citizens first and foremost. Because politicians spend all of their waking hours figuring out ways to secure votes, it is hard for them to admit that their first obligation is to citizens who already vote, not people who work here illegally who may vote in the future. So the admission that we are a sovereign nation that owns the right to tell people who is allowed in and who must leave immediately never seems to interest politicians. Yet, they are elected! The truth is that America has the right to defend itself from terrorists, from people working here illegally, even from a Martian invasion. Can Congress handle that?

4. That public charity doesn’t work doesn’t work as well as intended. It should be obvious that after billions (if not trillions) of dollars spent on public charity, the poverty rate is virtually unchanged since the mid-1970s. Worse, it has made dependence on public charity a way of life for too many. Yet, we seem incapable of handling that truth and changing the system. This Jessep guy is sounding more dead-on all the time.

5. That public education doesn’t work as well as intended. If it did, the rest of these truths would be easy to handle. We would know military history, so we wouldn’t expect our current war to be perfect. We would know basic economics and would understand why gas prices are high. We would understand fundamentally what a “right” is, and would be familiar enough with the constitution to know that we can defend our borders. And our ethics teaching would be good enough to teach us how dehumanizing public charity has become in America. But instead of reforming public education, we subsidize it even more. We can’t handle the truth about public education either.

Fortunately, the blogosphere is like mental barbells. Given the conservative backlash over President Bush’s and the “conservative” Congress’s political calculations, the conservative movement is showing itself more capable of handling the truth, much more so than its elected representatives. Maybe it’s time we consider that Colonel Jessep was right: we can’t handle the truth. But in time, with a little more education, we’ll be able to handle it, and even thrive living by it.

Will We Ever Be a Colorblind Society?

“I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” – Martin Luther King, Jr.

Well, it was a nice dream while it lasted. Back here in Awake Land, I wish I could just love people for who they are, and the color of their skin wasn’t thrust upon me when I wasn’t worried about it to begin with. A confluence of events have made me realize that the issue of race is still volatile in America for all the wrong reasons, and perpetuated by those who are hurt most by it remaining volatile.

First, there was an anchorwoman for Channel 2 in Chicago who accused a reputable contracting company for doing “shoddy” work, simply because she was black. There is no proof that the contractors are racist; it is an accusation that was made because it can be. It’s not the first time this reporter has made such accusations, and given her high-profile persona, it strikes me as highly irresponsible if no proof can be offered. The real damage of these sorts of accusations are twofold: it forces us to look at people only by the color of their skin, and because these character assaults require no proof, the reputation of the contractor is instantly stained through no fault of his own.

Second is the continued immigration rallies, which I understand aren’t supposed to be about race as such, but the issue bubbles just beneath the situation. Unlike the crystal clear race issues of the 1960’s Civil Rights Movement, the immigration debate isn’t about race. But for those who don’t support the marcher’s political aims, it has been hard to distinguish their political goals from their ethnicity. And to those who oppose the political objectives of the marchers, the ethnicity of the marchers is of no consequence; but it seems that we can no longer ignore it.

The hoisting of Mexican flags is a right I grant to them all, but it focuses the attention to be on cultural and ethnic divisions as much if not more than political goals of the marchers. So honest debate about serious immigration issues is tarnished from the beginning, because the compulsion by the marchers to force outsiders to see them for their ethnicity as much as their policy needs has made a colorblind debate all but impossible. It has forced those who oppose illegal immigration to sound as though they are opposed to Mexicans or South Americans (or any ethnicity marching for that matter) more than policy changes. This is simply not the case, and it could set the stage for future unrest.

And then there is, of course, New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin, whose “chocolate city” quip single-handedly made an entire speech (and an entire agenda) about solely the color of someone’s skin, not the content of their character. Far be it from him to encourage all qualified people to return to the port city to rebuild it! No, this was about race and nothing more. And what was the result? White backlash that is both unfortunate and preventable. Backlash in the form of bumper stickers, racial defensiveness, and resentment. Backlash that was encouraged by forcing people who are willing to ignore racial differences and get on with life.

And this purposefully race-filled rhetoric is still going on despite a middle class with more and more minorities participating in the growing economy. I guess my question is, what can I do to encourage people to stop forcing me to view them in a way I do not want to? I do not want to only view people by the color of their skin, so what can I do to end the rhetoric about race in America?

For now, I’m disappointed. I wish we could all, white, black, and brown could take Dr. King's advice.

Jane Jacobs and The Difficulty of City Planning

A major figure in the history of urban planning passed away last week, one who single-handedly challenged and brought down the orthodoxy of her day. Jane Jacobs, who rose to fame with her 1961 book The Death and Life of Great American Cities, unflinchingly pointed to the mistaken assumptions that led designers to create dreadful crime-ridden super-blocks under the rubric “urban renewal”. In our current obsession to preserve as much historic urban fabric as possible, even to re-create it from scratch in some places, it is difficult to understand that throughout most of the twentieth, improving a city meant to demolish the old and replace with newer, supposedly more enlightened, public projects. Le Corbusier was among the biggest champions of such a view, and is frequently cited as the guiding influence for numerous faceless modernist urban blocks throughout the world. Nowadays, to improve the city is to restore the elements that once made urban life enjoyable, emphasizing sidewalks, mixed-uses and preserving the character of old neighborhoods.

Such a changed consensus on planning is largely due to Jacobs’ firm stance, who as an outsider to architectural planning circles and no academic herself. She steadfastly took apart principles that guided the practice of urban design since the late nineteenth century while proposing more workable solutions without even needing to graphically illustrate them. This was contrary to the traditional evolution of architecture, which consisted usually a graphic proposal followed by a graphic response. This explains why pattern books and monographs were crucial in the popularization of new styles of architecture. Part of the reason Le Corbusier’s ideas for the “Radiant City” were so popular was due to his clean and dream-like renderings. Jacobs did not respond by proposing a new architectural order, but by teaching us to think about urban problems as they actually to happen, not as the result of some abstract excuse like ‘poverty’ or ‘discrimination’.

And that is actually one of the most striking things about Jacobs’ book: she refutes the planners--a group that communicates strictly in forms and patterns--by using her knowledge sociology and daily human interactions without ever discussing in terms of architectural form or styles. She reveals a common flaw among all designers of habitable environment: that often they are driven by notions of how things ‘should’ work rather than finding how things actually work. A designer will claim that by putting a park here, a shopping strip there, and so much housing nearby, that an area will be filled with joyous crowds and that the neighborhood will rejuvenate by virtue of thoughtful design. After all, a drawn plan is essentially graphic depiction of how an organization of spaces ‘should’ work. The problem with this approach to solving urban problems is that it simplifies the way humans interact with their environment and with each other.

There are countless reasons why people do the things they do, many on a purely irrational basis. Dallas’s West End features charming historic architecture, manicured pedestrian zones, excellent public transit access, and a historic museum that draws many tourists. And still on any given day, you will find many times more people inside a gargantuan blue and yellow box surrounded by a sea of parking next to an unfinished highway. Why would they rather be in the latter situation? Because people have developed an inexplicable, and thus irrational, loyalty to the IKEA brand. A designer can only at best guess where people are likely to congregate, but much of the success of a development relies on understanding the reality beyond the drawings. The nature of particular businesses, the habits of certain social classes, and the informal systems of ensuring security and social trust will be more critical to the success of creating lively public spaces than the design. Still, Jacobs understand that design matters in facilitating the social mechanisms needed for success. Rather than being prescriptive, she favors restrictions on certain architectural tendencies that destroy fundamental human relationships.

Other writers have labeled Jane Jacobs as a libertarian, and I can see why that is so. If one reads libertarian publications, particularly like Reason Magazine, you will find that much of their writing focuses on issues at a very intimate yet practical level. Jacobs, who based all of her research on her own personal observations and conversations with others (she rarely cites any outside sources), is able to present a mundane yet revealing perspective on the various ways people behave and relate. Libertarians often propose original solutions to problems by discarding idealistic values in favor purely pragmatic ones. Their beliefs on general philosophy and political theory are simple and consistent, which allows them complete freedom to consider alternatives that may upset most people’s moral instincts. Whether it is the complete legalization of drugs to the dismantling of the welfare state, libertarians are not afraid to question and propose our most cherished assumptions about how to improve our lives. Jacobs ascribes no intrinsic value to open space and parks, since they are dependent on surrounding social factors. And she definitely ascribes little value building as a way to solve social problems, similar to the closely held libertarian belief that it is futile to throw more money at a problem if its diagnosis is flawed.

Jacobs’ main contribution to urban studies is the realization that cities are more about the people that populate the city than it is about its physical forms and structures. They are a dynamic confluence of culture, commerce, leisure and individuals making countless decisions that affect how urban spaces are inhabited. It’s a messier state of affairs than what an elegant master-plan describes, and often the outcomes of what happens to an area has more to do with factors outside the realm of design, such as poor law-enforcement, the macro-economic context or punitive taxation. With all these considerations, it’s no wonder that the practice of urban design could be considered too confined by abstraction. One studio I took at school entailed the master-planning of an existing European city. The recommended strategy at the time was to map prevailing existing patterns found in the surrounding urban fabric, to overlap these patterns on top of each other in order to ascertain evident graphical densities that would influence new urban forms. This process was fun and fascinating, but it was all so abstract that it instilled a feeling of uneasiness in me when thinking about how the actual inhabitants would perceive my ambitious construct. To defend my scheme, I came up with all sorts of rationalizations of why I zoned particular functions in certain areas and why it was a good idea to put a park that space but not in that one. In the end it was a lot of wishful thinking, but the renderings were seductive enough to receive favorable reviews.

Still planning is a noble pursuit, since a certain amount of visual consistency and order gives a city a useful legibility that makes its inhabitants comfortable. And despite the relative dearth of information an urban master-plan provides compared to the reams of construction documents for single buildings, urban design is considerable intellectual undertaking. It isn’t enough to follow rules of thumb in design, which are often abstract tools. It also requires a deeper understanding what people are really like.

Lack of Geographical Knowledge and Low Support for War No Coincidence

I am neither a political scientist nor a geographer, so I am perfectly qualified to link the following recent news: publicly educated children can’t find Iraq or Afghanistan on a map, and support for the war in Iraq is waning. Hmmm, see the connection? Even a layman like myself can see by only reading the highlights of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s comments that surrounding Iran with democracies is a good thing. Could anyone possibly doubt that Iran having nuclear weapons is the biggest possible danger the world faces, given its President’s recent comments, its lack of moral constraints, and its sponsorship of international terrorism?

Since the best reasons for the War on Terror have always been to de-stablize the region (yes, this is a good thing when madmen have control over millions), promote democracy in a theocratic world, and discourage Iranian fanaticism, the war is not without solid logical foundations, though war is never a qualitatively good thing by any measure. These foundations bear themselves out clearly when one knows the simple geography of the region: Iraq on the west of Iran, Afghanistan on the east.

If it is true that Iran has been a ticking time bomb for every administration since Carter’s, every president has likely been waiting for the opportunity and the justification to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, if for no other reason, to surround Iran. Forget “blood for oil,” WMDs, or even the truly good reasons to invade both struggling countries. Geography is enough justification as far as I’m concerned, given that Iran is the gravest threat out there, and 9/11 provided all the justification we needed to establish bases around Iran.

So why is support for the War on Terror waning? Well, it seems most American children, and I would imagine even more of their parents (since they haven’t even been to school in 2 decades) don’t understand that Iran is surrounded by Iraq and Afghanistan! If they don’t even know where these countries are, how they understand the very basic strategic advantage of having Iran surrounded?

In the clearest English I can muster, suppose you’re a psychic police captain, and you know at 4:00 today a bank will be robbed by a madman with a gun, who will kill every teller and customer without hesitation. Would you rather have the place surrounded by 3:00, or wait until the alarm sounds from the bank after everyone is already dead to respond? Of course, you (being the savvy police captain that you are) want to have the place surrounded clearly and loudly, so that the madman will never rob the bank to begin with, or if he does, he will be quickly overwhelmed. Iran is the bank robber, America is the police captain, and it doesn’t take a psychic to know that Ahmadinejad is spoiling to kill as many Israelites and Israelite sympathizers he can find. If we had moderate geography skills, this would be as plain to us as killing Jews is to Iran’s president, and support for the War on Terror would undoubtedly be higher.