Archive for the ‘culture’ Category
First vid: We’re ALL Social Justice Christians
Wednesday, April 7th, 2010When “Social Marketing” does more harm than good
Wednesday, March 31st, 2010My wife, Amy and I were watching TV the other night, and a series of commercials came on that told me a lot about who the sponsors of the show thought I was. First, there was a Pepsi ad for this program they have where they give grants to people with good, community-changing ideas. Second was a Sun Chips commercial touting their new compostable packaging.
I remarked to Amy about how prevalent this kind of social marketing had become, and did so with no small amount of disdain in my voice, I expect, based on the way she looked at me.
Basically, its popular these days for companies to tout their social responsibility to help persuade you to buy their product. From Sun Chips (owned by junk food giant Frito Lay) to Pepsi, and even Coke with their every time you drink our sugary, caffeine-laced soda, youre participating in worldwide recycling promotion, everyone wants to get in on the action. Of course, food and beverage manufacturers arent the only ones getting in on the action. Car manufacturers, clothing designers and all manner of retail chains try hard to give you wamr fuzzies about their products.
On the surface, I know it seems cynical to grumble about companies trying to be socially responsible, even if it only is to better their bottom line. After all, if the result is the same, who cares what their motivation really is, right? But the concern I have hearkens back to my time-tested theory about capitalism at the consumer-level, which is that companies try hard to make us feel good about buying their stuff, and we agree not to ask too many questions, because wed rather feel good (even if falsely or superficially) about getting what we want rather than doing the hard work of digging deeper for truth and God forbid maybe having to sacrifice some wants for our ethics.
First, we should never take a company at their word that what theyre doing is good for us or the planet. As an example, heres a recent mention about Sun Chips installation of a ten-acre field of solar panels to help operate one of their factories, for which they won an Effie. This award, it turns out, is not an environmental award, but rather an effectiveness in marketing recognition. This from Effies website:
On Earth Day 2008, Sun Chips factory in Modesto, Calif., opened a 10-acre solar grid so that Sun Chips would be made with solar energy. However, the brands users were not hard-core green consumers, and they didnt care to hear about the details. They just wanted to know they were doing something a little better.
Im not saying this move to solar is a bad thing, but there are a few questions Im left wondering about (though evidently, the marketing folks are clear that the general population doesnt really care):
What percentage of the factorys total consumption is generated by solar?
Was this part of a government mandate for communities/companies to get certain percentages of their energy from renewable sources, or was it voluntary?
Does the company have any standards for their suppliers and the way they grow, harvest and transport their products?
In short, the idea is to find out if this company seriously is committed to the values theyre promoting, or if its simply a photo-op. Before we give ourselves pats on the back for being responsible consumers, we should try to find out.
Second, and perhaps more important, I have concerns that we allow companies who engage in this kind of social marketing to assuage our guilt for our way of life, allowing us to feel like weve done our good deed simply buy buying a soft drink or eating chips. Yes, guiding our dollars to more responsible outlets is an important thing to consider, but this doesnt let us off the hook as human beings, responsible for the care of ourselves, our fellow human beings and the planet. Its not unlike how some folks figure they dont have to work hard at making the world a better place all week long, just because they go to church on Sunday.
If the companies we support truly are walking the talk, and if we can verify this, more power to them, and more power to us to support their efforts with our money. And if guiding our purchases in such a way is simply a reflection of a greater effort in all parts of our lives to do right by ourselves and our world, thats great.
But lets not fool ourselves; just because we drink Fat Tire instead of Miller Lite or buy our gifts from 10,000 Villages doesnt mean we dont have a hell of a lot of work left to do.
An open letter to critics of health care reform
Wednesday, March 24th, 2010
I understand that not everyone is a fan of the changes coming with the new health care reform legislation. However, I expect most can understand why at least the 32 million people anticipating having some kind of coverage would beg to differ.
This is not my issue. My beef is with the fear-mongering about the government takeover of health care. this is a broken system, and most of us simply find basic health care and insurance untenable. Its been a problem for decades and nothing substantial has been done, so kudos to those lawmakers who bucked up and spent some political capital to do SOMETHING. But in debating the laws implications, lets stick to logistics rather than capitalizing on fear of big government to polarize public opinion.
I would also suggest that such rhetoric is hypocritical for anyone benefiting from any of the following taxpayer-supported programs, which we have no choice but to support through our taxes:
Medicare
VA Benefits
Public Education (this includes state universities)
Social Security
Transportation systems (you drive on a road I/we paid for with our taxes)
I could go on, but the point is that ALL of us benefit from taxpayer-supported programs. Sure, health care is a huge portion of our national economy, but how about national defense? Ive yet to hear a tea party activist complain about their tax dollar going to missile systems or to fund internment camps for enemy combatants. Why is this? isnt the health of our citizenry at least as important?
For me, this is an issue of theological importance. If Jesus were here today, it would be hard to argue that he wouldnt chastise us for our treatment of the poor and less privileged, here in the wealthiest country in the world. And while Id love to see our communities address this and other issues without government intervention, how much longer do we wait? How many more thousands/millions should remain sick or die while we debate how to best reform a broken health care system? How many more decades should we say is acceptable until we say enough?
Its not a perfect bill, and no one is saying it is. But thank God something is changing. At least now were taking some responsibility for one of the most sorely neglected issues of social justice weve yet to content with as a nation.
My LOST prediction: Who will be the hero?
Tuesday, March 23rd, 2010
In a recent interview for a radio show about LOST, I was asked a lot about the coming end of the show, including who I thought the hero or heroes ultimately would be. Though I honestly hadnt thought much about it, the person that we all tended to agree on surprised even me:
Hurley.
Thats right, the dude man. After I thought a little more about it, the long-shot idea began to make more sense. Thinking about the theme of redemption and transformation throughout the show, all the main characters have gone through major personal revelations, eschewing their spotty pasts for a second chance at a new life on the island. Some have done better than others with this second chance, but no one has been left unchanged.
Now, the most obvious choice for hero is Jack, who even has the Christlike name Shephard and is, by profession, a healer. But given the complexity of the show, I expect a curve-ball or two come the apocalyptic end. But the only one who has been good, more or less from start to finish is Hurley. And theres one other key reason why I think he might be the one; hes the only one who came to the island with thew apparent understanding that getting everything you think you want in life can actually be more of a curse than a blessing.
This theme of wish-fulfillment being a curse is getting stronger throughout the final season, partcularly with Smokey/Locke dangling carrots in front of folks like getting off the island or getting all the answers they ever wanted. Hell, he might as well have a forked tongue and slither on his belly.
But so far, he hasnt tempted Hurley as I can recall, and neither has anyone else. Hes followed other people when he thinks its the right thing to do, but never out of persona self-interest.
So there it is. Ive said it. Its out there. tell me what a moron I am and why this cant possibly be whats coming. But my money, at least for now, is on Hurley.
Tire-Burning, Corporate “Citizens” and the Supreme Court
Friday, March 5th, 2010NewSpin
By Christian Piatt
(Originally printed in PULP)
Love or hate it, we have a new cement plant in Pueblo. Yes, it will bring jobs, and yes, it will add pollution to our local environment. Spin it however you want, but no one can argue in good conscience that cement manufacturing has a positive or even neutral impact on the planet.
What were left with, then, is the challenge of at least mitigating those negative effects on our community. Already, we see growing numbers of respiratory-related problems in Pueblo. So what to do?
Some local media have celebrated the proposal to burn used tires for fuel in the plant, indicating that this is an excellent example of real recycling for our state to celebrate. Apparently, the other recycling efforts currently underway in Southern Colorado dont qualify as real.
Granted, we have millions of tires that have to be disposed of every year, one way or another, and burning them for fuel does decrease the need for fossil fuels. But to tout tire burning as an alternative energy source is, at best, disingenuous.
As the Montana Environmental Information Center points out, Tires contain chlorine. When chlorine is burned, it can form dioxin. DEQ (Department of Environmental Quality) admits that the dioxin emissions pose the greatest risk to health and the environment from tire burning.
But dioxin is only one concern. The Energy Justice Network lists lots of other dangerous byproducts on tire burning:
The fumes emitted are packed with the many toxic chemicals that tires contain (including volatile organic compounds such as benzene, metals such as lead, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons such as benzo(a)pyrene, and synthetic rubber components such as butadiene and styrene). Additionally, the chlorine content in tires leads to the creation of dioxins and furans (which are extremely toxic chemicals) when tires are burned.
One argument that proponents of this energy strategy make is that, although these compounds created in the fires are highly toxic, the systems used to burn the tires can clean such chemicals from the gases emitted into the atmosphere.
Theyre right that such systems exist. The problem is that cement plants that burn tires arent required to have them.
Said environmental researcher Dr. Neil Carman: Cement kilns are not designed or required to have major fail-safe combustion devices such as large afterburners that all state-of-the-art incinerators must have by federal law today
Research for this piece yielded no federal or state standards to which polluters are held to determine if their tire-burnings are in compliance or not, and emissions from such plants generally are tested only 2 1/2 years, at most.
There is a fee that the state collects every time a new tire is sold. Approximately $1.50 of each sale goes to the state, supposedly for the purpose of subsidizing proper disposal of the tires once theyre out of commission. The problem is that this fund has regularly been raided, allocated instead for general fund expenses rather than being set aside to aid the purpose for which the tax was initially levied.
There are lots of other more Earth-friendly uses for old tires, especially once they are ground into crumb rubber. The byproduct is used for playground surfaces, running tracks and even in asphalt for roads. But these uses dont fetch the same premium that they do as fuel. Meanwhile the shell game of environmental risk factors continues, and our communitys health suffers the inevitable consequences.
On a somewhat related topic, state manufacturers are incensed about proposed legislation that would lift the tax exemption for two years theyve enjoyed on all money spent on energy to run their factories. The impact would indeed be close to home, with companies like Evraz Steel and Summit Brick realizing a significant tax increase.
The companies are fair in arguing such expenses may result in layoffs down the road. Pro-business advocates argue that the absence of such exemptions make us appear less business-friendly as a state. All of this aside, I have more of a philosophical issue with this complaint.
Personally, I get no tax break for the money I spend on electricity and gas in my home, and a big percentage of every dollar I spend on gasoline goes to the government coffers. Corporations dont want to be treated like individuals because, theoretically, they bring more economic value to the table. They deserve special treatment.
Then the federal Supreme Court ruled recently that corporations indeed should have the same First Amendment rights to free speech that individual citizens have, which means they have free rein to donate to the political campaigns of their choosing.
It seems that businesses want to be treated as individual citizens when it benefits them, but not when it comes to taxation. This double standard not only serves to erode the confidence of a public already suspect of the impartiality of government; it also makes a mockery of the Constitution upon which our system of governance is based.
New Podcast: Time, death and the Brain
Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010I just posted a new podcast called “Time, Death and the Brain”
http://christianpiatt.podbean.com
Let me know what you think.
Peace,
Christian
Is Christianity in the Closet?
Tuesday, February 23rd, 2010
Smells Like Spirit
Is faith hiding in the closet?
By Christian Piatt
(Originally published in PULP)
For a long time in American history, its been relatively taboo to admit youre an atheist, or even an agnostic. In some ways, the bias favoring people of faith still holds. Imagine an atheist candidate for president trying to get nominated, much less elected, and the storm of controversy that would surround it.
Though some positions of political power may be out of reach for those who claim no faith, it has become more acceptable in recent years to admit agnosticism or even atheism. In fact, theres even a bit of counter-culture hipness to confessing it.
While the relaxation of social strictures that allow people to speak freely about their faith or lack of it has opened up public dialogue in arguably healthy ways, the pendulum also has swung the other way, at least a bit. In a recent article on Salon.com, Ada Calhoun writes about an experience where a friend of hers caught her dressed up on the street on a Sunday morning, joking with her that she must be headed to church. She laughed it off and sheepishly continued on her way to Catholic Mass, too embarrassed to admit it to her friend.
Im not cheating on my husband, committing crimes or doing drugs, says Calhoun. But those are battles my cosmopolitan, progressive friends would understand. To them, my situation is far more sinister: I am the bane of their youth, the boogeyman of their politics, the very thing they left their small towns to escape. I am a Christian.
Part of this is likely a normal social cycle, back and forth along the spectrum of the sacred and secular. However, Christianity in particular carries sufficient weight for the embarrassment these reticent faithful exhibit.
Who wants to be lumped in with all the other Christians, asks Calhoun, especially the ones you see on TV protesting gay marriage, giving money to charlatans, and letting priests molest children? Andy Warhol went to Mass every Sunday, but not even his closest friends knew he was a devout Catholic until his death. I get that.
So do I. As one who is seen both in our local community and in larger literary circles as a figurehead for postmodern Christianity, I spend as much time and energy responding to these negative connotations attached to my faith as I do speaking positively about what a community of faithful, committed to causes of service, compassion and social justice, can do to make the world a better place.
Its important to understand how far and wide this disaffection for organized religion runs. There are huge groups of people who, though they study and practice the teachings of Jesus, choose not to call themselves Christians because of the baggage attached to the term. Instead, they prefer the term Christ followers, both because it is less encumbered with negativity, and also because it speaks of what they do, rather than define what group to which they belong.
There are lots of books on the subject too, such as un-Christian, by David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons, or They Like Jesus but Not the Church, by Dan Kimball. One common sentiment throughout these texts is that the image of God, or more specifically, Jesus, should not suffer because of the crap that humans do in their name.
Not surprisingly, theres a healthy amount of blowback from the institution of church as well. While some faith communities see the writing on the wall and seek to learn from historys lessons, others are building defenses still higher, lobbing verbal salvos from the other side.
Authors like Peter Rollins, who wrote The Orthodox Heretic and How (Not) to Speak of God, among others, have been labeled as brazen heretics, masquerading as Christ followers simply to further the mythical goal of reducing church to rubble.
Meanwhile, people like Ada Calhoun skulk in the shadows to practice their faith, worried that being associated with those with whom she strongly disagrees will be a social albatross around her neck. Though it will take much time and no small amount of effort, its my hope that Christians once again earn the respect and appreciation of the public, and that Calhoun and her peers can come out of the closet and be proud to openly call themselves Christian.
Admitting Powerlessness
Wednesday, January 13th, 2010Admitting powerlessness
By Christian Piatt
(Originally published in PULP)
I travel sometimes for work. Every time I do, my wife, Amy, worries about me. Before a recent trip alone, she admonished me no less than four times to travel safely. Though I dont have much control over that in flight, except for using my seat cushion as a flotation device in the event of a water landing, I told her I would.
What neither of us was thinking about was the safety of the family I left behind.
Amy joked that my little Prius was doomed for an apocalyptic fate, since she had cleaned it for me while I was out of town. An innocent joke, but it turned out to be eerily prophetic.
I got a call on Wednesday afternoon from Amy. She was crying.
Everyone is all right, she said between sobs, but we got in a pretty bad wreck.
With the kids in the back seat, Amy pulled out of a parking lot after being waved out by a driver in the right lane (what weve since learned is called the death wave by insurance folks), and was met by a full-sized pickup in the center lane whose massive grill guard lifted our little hybrid off the ground, shearing the front completely off.
She sent me a picture from her phone and my stomach sank. Even though I knew no one was hurt, just seeing the car so mangled and knowing my whole family had been so close to a similar fate, made me nearly sick.
Times like that make harshly real how tenuous our grasp is on anything in this life. I had no control over what happened, whether or not I had been there, or if I had spent more time worrying about what might and this time, did happen.
Strangely, this sense of powerlessness made me think of a friend of mine who has been working on his sobriety for some time, but who resists involvement in a 12-step group or any sort of faith community. The reason, as its been suggested to me by a couple of people, is because he has a hard time with the idea of handing over power to a higher authority.
Anyone in AA or the like can tell you that you dont have to believe in God to have your recovery work. Your higher authority can be whatever you choose, but the idea is to admit your own powerlessness. After all, as one friend of his pointed out to him, he yielded to the higher authority of drugs and alcohol for long enough. Why not try something or someone else?
One of the scariest things about admitting powerlessness, whether were addicts or not, is that were conceding the reality of suffering in our lives. We cant stop it, and that angers us. To me, a healthy faith is not one that leans on promises of wealth, comfort or a lack of hardship, but rather one that strives for peace amid an unavoidably hard life.
In the end, my own peace is the only thing over which in fact I have any control.
Dockers Man-ifesto and a great womanist response
Thursday, January 7th, 2010So, Ive been working on this book about postmodern male identity for some time called BE A MAN, and Brandon, a colleague of mine, passed along the text of a recent Dockers ad campaign theyve labeled the Man-ifesto. Heres the ad content:
Once upon a time, men wore the pants, and wore them well. Women rarely had to open doors and little old ladies never crossed the street alone. Men took charge because thats what they did. But somewhere along the way, the world decided it no longer needed men. Disco by disco, latte by foamy non-fat latte, men were stripped of their khakis and left stranded on the road between boyhood and androgyny. But today, there are questions our genderless society has no answers for. The world sits idly by as cities crumble, children misbehave and those little old ladies remain on one side of the street. For the first time since bad guys, we need heroes. We need grown-ups. We need men to put down the plastic fork, step away from the salad bar and untie the world from the tracks of complacency. Its time to get your hands dirty. Its time to answer the call of manhood. Its time to wear the pants.
And heres a revised version/response from a blogger known as Heartless Doll, which I think kinda rules:
Once upon a time, men didnt have anyone questioning their shit. They wanted to be congratulated for opening doors and walking across streets. Men were in charge because they kept everyone else down. But somewhere along the way, women wised up and were like, these dudes are fucking assholes and wed like some freedom and autonomy now, please. Somehow, dance music and delicious coffee made it so that men couldnt wear the official pants of middle management, left stranded on the road between ageism and misogyny. But today, there are questions scholars, feminists and other people who speak truth to power would like some answers to. The world does not sit idly by as activists fight against the actual evils of the world while some pants company complains about coffee. For the first time since bad guys, we realized that the heroes were often the bad guys. We need grown-ups who dont whine about dance music. We need men to not be ushered into oppressive gender roles and to eat salad if they want to, and ladies, too. Its time for everyone to get their hands dirty. Its time to answer the call of gender equality. Its time to wear whatever the fuck you want.