Banned Book Club – Catch-22

What’s the catch? For Captain John Yossarian and the rest of the characters in Joseph Heller’s classic novel it was Catch-22, a semi-unofficial rule best explained by the author. From chapter five:

Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn’t, but if he were sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn’t have to; but if he didn’t want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.

This was a hard book to follow. The events portrayed in it aren’t introduced in a chronological order, nor in a flashback format, really. Heller devotes some chapters to Yossarian’s experience of events from his life in general and on the job. The rest are used to relay those events as witnessed, explained or misunderstood by other officers and friends. It all gels in the end, apparently, if you can get that far. Only one in our group did and it wasn’t me. I only skimmed the end chapters without getting too involved with them. I lost interest in the book around chapter 35 but I did consider quitting sooner. It was most enjoyed by the one guy who’s actually experienced life in the American military. I’ll have to refer to the Yossarian write-up on Wikipedia to make sense of it.

Yossarian wants to get the hell out WWII and Pianosa, the remote little island off Italy where he’s stationed. Unfortunately, every time he gets close to completing the required number of bombing runs, his superior officer, Colonel Cathcart, ups the mission number needed to earn the flight home. (It starts at 25 but by the end of the book it’s up to 80.) He’s a liar, a malingerer, a saboteur and a very desperate individual. It’s debatable whether he’s actually crazy, or the only sane man in a crazy situation. Most of what he does is a reaction to the situation he’s been put in and has no other control over.

When a friend and one of his crew, Snowden, gets struck by flak that pierced their plane during a run, Yossarian does what he can to save the man but the injuries are far too severe.

Snowden’s death embodies Yossarian’s desire to evade death; by seeing Snowden’s entrails spilling over the plane, he feels that “Man was matter, that was Snowden’s secret. Drop him out a window and he’ll fall. Set fire to him and he’ll burn. Bury him and he’ll rot, like other kinds of garbage. The spirit gone, man is garbage.”

The experience on the plane dramatically changes Yossarian’s attitude towards life. He now looks only to protect his own life and, to a lesser extent, the lives of his close friends.

And whatever faith he might have had in the military before that point vanishes in a heartbeat. He can’t save anyone anyway. Most of the people he’d consider friends die in the book, or disappear without a trace.

Some of our meeting focused on other characters that featured in the book. One we talked about was Milo Minderbender who runs the mess hall in a strange yet very efficient way. As the book progresses, we learn that he’s a crafty entrepreneur who nearly always manages to make a profit. (At one point he’s paid by the Germans to bomb his own squadron and gets away with it.) This led to discussion about capitalism in general and satirical points Heller was trying to make about war being a business like anything else.

This is probably a book that does need to be read a few times in order to get a sense of where Heller wanted to go with it. I don’t think I’d try it again though. There were some parts I did laugh out loud over: the absurdities of bureaucracy and the bit where Yossarian bitches about God’s incompetence. Other parts were surprising and truly cringe-worthy, like McWatt’s daredevil behaviour and what ultimately resulted from it. Reading about the finale, I see I missed a lot of critical events. Ah well. If I couldn’t generate enough interest in the story to stick with it to the end… Some books are just like that, and it doesn’t matter if they’re considered classics.

A Question of Atheist Scruples – Round 2

I found a copy of A Question of Scruples a while back and decided it might be entertaining to go through the questions and answering them as honestly as possible. Like last time, I’ll answer three questions and add one more for readers to weigh in on.

You want to landscape your property but find that trees cost too much. Do you drive into the woods and take some?

Ha. No. I’d just raid my dad’s yard. Mom and Dad planted 2000 trees or so on their acreage in the early ’70s and saplings pop up all over the place, often where they don’t want them. They’d gotten theirs through Indian Head’s PFRA Shelterbelt Centre.

The benefits of shelterbelts are numerous. Shelterbelts reduce wind speed and thereby create a microclimate for yards, gardens, and crops. The wind is deflected up and over the shelterbelt, creating a well-protected zone in the lee of the belt. The zone of protection extends outward many times the height of the trees. Reducing wind speed can have a dramatic energy saving benefit. On average, a mature 5-row shelterbelt, with at least 2 rows of conifers, planted around a farmhouse will reduce its heat requirements by 25%. The trapped snow provides water for dugouts and soil reserves.

Not to mention trapping the pesky CO2 while they’re at it, and providing refuge for wildlife of all kinds, especially birds.

A friend wants to copy and swap some expensive software. You know it’s illegal. Do you swap?

My copy of Scruples come out in 1984 just as personal computers were coming into focus as affordable fun for the whole family. Apple’s famous ad for the Macintosh ran that year during the Superbowl. My school bought a couple Apple II’s for the whole student body to share and by 1987 there were two IIe’s in every classroom. The junior high I attended after had a whole room filled with computers for kids who wanted to take the programming class. I was satisfied with what little I knew of BASIC and LOGO, which wasn’t much. I never owned a computer until I reached university and discovered they were actually useful for other things. To finally answer the question, yes, I’d probably agree to a swap if we each had something the other wanted. Illegal or not, cops have more important things to do than crack down on software trading when it’s on a one-on-one basis. Cops could get after the library for loaning out DVDs and CDs, too. It’s pretty damned obvious that if someone borrows fifty CDs Friday night and drops them off again Saturday morning that they probably ripped every one of them to their computer. We don’t flag their cards and report them. No proof they did that. Suspicions, but no proof. I think far too many people have already shrugged off the illegalities of it and it barely tarnishes their notion of being a law-abiding citizen. And to get biblical on your ass, “let him who is without sin cast the first stone.” Do you see any stones flying?

Someone you don’t particularly like invites you to an expensive restaurant that you’d love to try. Do you go just for the meal?

Is he or she treating? I can think of a few people I’d force myself to sit across from if it meant I got free food out of it. If it’d be up to me to pay my way, I’d pass on the offer. I’d rather plan a night there with people I enjoy being around.

Last question, left for you to answer. Feel free to answer the other three as well.

The government has been overthrown by a party that is violent and undemocratic. You are asked to join the underground. Do you?

Creationist propaganda matters more than education in Kentucky

Based on were they want their money spent, at any rate. From Forbes:

In one of the most spectacularly mis-prioritized state budgets in recent memory, Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear (D), is suggesting over $50 million in cuts to education – while preserving $43 million in tax breaks for the Ark Encounter, a creationist amusement park centered around a life-sized Noah’s Ark. The park is sponsored by Answers In Genesis, a non-profit organization that promotes a “literalist” interpretation of the Book of Genesis while promoting an anti-evolution (and other sciences) agenda.

There are a number of reasons why this is a bad idea.

Oh my non-existent god, are there ever. The author, Alex Knapp, hit on a few. Cuts to education only work if previous work has been done to reform the system first so standards can still be met even with less funding. Apparently that’s not the case here. Plus, the park is a luxury more than it is a necessity.

in a time of austerity, surely it makes most sense to eliminate wasteful subsidies first, rather than essential public services. Especially subsidies that are of dubious value to begin with, whether its this “Ark Park” or a football stadium.

I add a link because I didn’t know what he meant. Austerity is an economics term, a policy intended for cutting spending and increasing taxes in order to decrease debt. Public services often face cuts when governments go this route and education falls under that, unfortunately.

I agree on the “dubious value” of a creationist theme park (anywhere, not just Kentucky), but I suppose Kentucky is assuming the tourism dollars will make it worthwhile? Knapp notes that the move to give them a tax break is close to crossing a line – maintaining separation of church and state. P.Z. Meyers notes that a further $11 million is going toward infrastructure: “highway improvements for the Ark Park” itself. Hopefully properties other than the Ark Park benefit from that little windfall. That cash isn’t going towards their personal driveway and parking lot, right? Right?

Quoting Friendly Atheist now because he’s so succinct:

In summary, Governor Beshear has basically used $54,000,000 of taxpayer money to help the Biblical Ark Park. And he took $50,000,000 away from the education budget.

In other words, the Governor just took away $100,000,000 that could have gone toward educating people.

There’s no real education to be found at Ark Encounter. Mythology treated as fact is
what they offer. Mythology as entertainment is one thing, and probably a fun thing, but this gets sold as if it’s more true than anything science has taught humanity about our origins and existence. Add to that a government essentially encouraging this business to continue unabated and it equals a very serious problem for the future. It’s a pity education has to take a hit just so this junk heap can stay afloat.

Less than 3 months away..must be time for War on Christmas!

The most recent casualty, at least going by the Daily Mail, is a release of Thomas the Tank Engine on DVD:

The team behind the much-loved children’s TV series has angered campaigners by setting a story during the ‘winter holidays’.

Even Christmas trees have been axed in an episode of the DVD, Little Engines, Big Days Out, and are instead referred to as decorated trees. Brightly wrapped presents are delivered to a ‘holiday party’.

Critics say the omission was particularly strange because the original Thomas books, hugely popular around the world, were written by a clergyman, the Reverend Wilbert Awdry.

I think most kids are savvy enough to see through that switcharoo, don’t you? Kids know what time of year typically generates a desire to hang shiny shit on trees and gift wrap packages to shake, rattle and roll underneath them. I’m sure they don’t really give a damn what the event is called so long as a few of those gifts will have their names on come the big day. We may as well be honest and call it “Gimme a Present Day” and be done with it.

Ann Widdecombe, the former Government Minister and convert to Roman Catholicism, said it was ‘extra ridiculous’ not to mention Christmas in a children’s story as youngsters would be anticipating the special day for months in advance.

‘The shops will be stocking Christmas gifts, the television will be advertising presents and people will be talking about it, so the idea that children won’t hear about it is ludicrous,’ she said.

I understand the desire to make things more inclusive. Nobody likes feeling left out of things and it really is a very simple matter to change the name of a holiday to something else in order to reflect that. That said, nobody ever insists Hanukkah ought to be more secularized. Why not? Is it because it’s still practiced by a minority and celebrates a specific political victory that had meaning for Jews alone? Other groups have overthrown their governments in the times since, but none of them ever bothered to adopt the menorah to commemorate their victories. Could they have? I’m just throwing it out there. Hmm.. I get an idea for an alternative history book now where Judaism was the popular faith of old and Christians were the ones run out of town and later decimated like plague-ridden rats…

Hit Entertainment, the company behind the DVD, said: ‘It was put out some time ago. It was not a seasonal release specifically aimed at a Christmas audience, but we do put out seasonal releases that have Christmas in the title.

‘Last year we had Christmas Express and next year we are planning another Christmas title.’

However, John Midgely, of the Campaign Against Political Correctness, said: ‘This is an attempt to write Christmas out of something that is so popular with families.’

Truth be told, this editing is getting absurd. Let the tree be a Christmas tree. Let the day be called Christmas Day. They’re hardly fooling anyone by switching the terminology around. Muslim kids aren’t going to start begging their folks to let them put trees up to celebrate this particular December event anyway. They’ve got their own special holidays in their lunar counted year. I don’t hear of people begging to get in on their New Year’s Day celebrations, this year on November 26th. Do they do anything special to commemorate that? I have no idea. The Day of Ashura hits ten days later, on December 7th, but a whole day to do nothing but mourn an ancient martyr sounds painfully depressing. Passaroonie.

Every religion has its special events across the year, but Christianity is certainly the odd one out in terms of how many of their holidays wound up with secularized versions on the same days. When I think of Easter, it’s bunnies and eggs, not torture and death. When I think of Christmas, it’s not angels and holy miracles coming to mind; it’s songs I’m sick of hearing by December 2nd and overeating on the big day.

I think Christmas will always have its secular counterpart and whether it winds up being called Christmas or Festivus or whatever, the point is moot. Have fun. Eat, drink, and be merry. Watch the kids go bananas over their new possessions. Fondly recall the days when you had the same Christmas day reactions to yours.

Like the year I got a Care Bear. I think I was 10 and when I unwrapped Good Luck Bear, I think I bolted to my bedroom, rubbed my hands over my eyes in case I imagined it, and then ran back into the living room to make sure it was still there. I still have him, too. I remember the year I found a VCR under there, and several rented movies. Parenthood was absolute crap but I still love The Little Mermaid. I got a guitar one year that did get some play, and Mom has a few pictures around of early Christmases and evidence of what my toys looked like before I broke them. (I still played with them though. I was that kind of kid.) I’ve still got my old fox and yellow stuffed dinosaur too, battered though they are. I got those the year I was begging for a giant stuffed stegosaurus I’d seen advertised in the Sears catalogue. At least Todd and Dino were the right size to cuddle in bed for years afterwards. No idea what I would have done with the big guy… Sometimes my parents were pretty smart.

What do you remember?

Art can be an enlightening emotional experience…

even when it’s tacky as all get out. Andrew Brown at the Guardian has a short post about bad Jesus art, a topic I can’t seem to leave alone. He includes a link to Ship of Fools and their Gadgets for God section. I wish I’d found that when I wrote my “Why can’t artists leave Jesus alone?” post. I think the gadgets are less about art and more about the lure of consumerism and money making, but they’re entertaining to look at, nonetheless. I can’t imagine why people would want them, except as curiosities. And yet, there’s no doubt the faithfull find this stuff in a shop somewhere and can’t help but believe God or Jesus meant for them to have it. And then they’ll open both their hearts and their wallets…

Considered just as art, it makes you want to wash your eyes with bleach. But there is no doubt that there’s a worked out symbol system here, which means a lot to believers, and could be translated into coherent and fairly sensible prose. That hints, in fact, at what is wrong, artistically. The intended audience knows what is meant far too well to see what is actually there, right in front of their eyes.

What’s actually there is evidence that belief tends to trump sense. A 10 commandments poster seems like a reasonable purchase, maybe. Never mind that there’s a copy in every bible in the house already, but whatever. Does a person really need a 10 commandment blanket? To celebrate Easter, some go to church and walk the stations of the cross. Is it necessary to bring a neon light-up set home for your lawn or roof as well? I fail to see how wearing Jesus Loves You flip flops to the beach is going to make anyone a better Christian, be it the wearer or those reading what’s left behind. Anyone looking to sell their home in this market might need the equivalent of a miracle but will a statue of St. Joseph (patron saint of homes) actually make a sale happen faster?

I think some people have an emotional attachment to their religions in the way others get attached to Star Wars memorabilia or the wares typically sold at comic conventions. I was pissed off for days after losing my Star Trek sound effects key chain. A friend of mine has a “Trouble with Tribbles” ornament that drops tribbles on Kirk’s head and quotes the episode. I was so envious of that thing, I was plotting ways to steal it last Christmas.

It’s all about feeling connected to something greater than we are by ourselves. Art can unify us. Architecture. Pop culture. Small wonder we’ll glom onto trinkets that we think speak to us as individuals even when they’re mass produced. It’s somewhat soothing to know someone else in the world has probably bought the same silly thing for the same silly reason. Like kindred spirits, maybe.

What kind of “collectables” have you spent your money on?

I’d rather be a “Flying Spaghetti Monster Slapper”

Via a blogger at the New York Times I learn a new phrase: Fish Slapper. It’s used to describe those who use religion in their advertising of products and services. The inevitable question gets asked: do they invoke religious iconography to prove they’re devout followers to their potential customers or merely trying lure devout followers in?

Forever 21, the American chain of stores selling trendy, value-priced clothes for young women has a Bible verse, John 3:16, on the bottom of its plastic shopping bags. West Coast-based In and Out Burger features the same verse on the bottom inside rim of its cups.

Perhaps this kind of branding is shorthand for “we’re a good company, trust us.” Do others have the notion that capitalism and religion should be mutually exclusive? Are consumers more inclined to do business with companies who align with a religion or does a company risk alienating audiences?

The blog’s author, MP Mueller, interviewed some business leaders to see what their thoughts were about this. Josh Wall, the vice president of development at Christian Brothers Automotive explained the history behind their name (coincidence masquerading as a miracle sent from God) but stated that most people “actually don’t connect the dots” and instead think people with the surname Christian started the business. It’s interesting to note that they don’t correct that erroneous assumption when it happens. You’d think they would have the urge to do so if they feel so compelled to retain their Christianized company name. But no:

We are just trying to be a light in the world. Love our neighbor as ourselves, treat them the way we want to treat our family. Those who don’t get to know our brand better may question or be cynical about our motives. That’s okay, we welcome that. We just want the opportunity to show people what excellent automotive repair is about.”

I think “excellent automotive repair” should be about a commitment to hire people who are skilled at automotive repair. Quality education and training doesn’t require a hearty dose of Jesus love in order to validate it. All consumers should care about is their willingness to stand by their work and their reputation. That doesn’t require Jesus either. Work ethic can be independent of religious ethic. I think some would argue that it always should be. Those people who think their devotion to crucifixes matter more than their doing their jobs come to mind.

Mueller also notes the existence of a Jewish attorneys network and the creators of it report being somewhat surprised by the majority of gentiles (is that word still used?) who select their services. They think it’s because the downtrodden in need of legal aid tend to assume Jewish lawyers will be most sympathetic to what they’re going through, considering their own past as a culture. Maybe they’re right, but lawyers have a commitment to making sure justice is done; if that person is nearly as guilty as Hitler, a Jewish lawyer can hardly lay a “Get Out of Jail Free” card on the table to save him.

As far as myself, I think I’d go out of my way to avoid overtly religious companies and organizations when distinctly secular options are readily available. Obviously I’m not going to grill every shop owner on his or her relationship with Jesus before I’ll commit to spending money there. That would be ridiculous. Walmart is pro-Christian but I boycott it for crimes against humanity types of reasons, not because they’re a “family values” behemoth sitting in judgement of what’s Christian enough to be sold in their stores. It goes against my ethics to support a company that doesn’t value its families enough to provide adequate wages and health care.

Consumers have to decide what they value. Maybe some don’t care about the ethics and morality behind the places they choose to shop. Maybe they don’t wonder what gets done with their money after they give it over. Maybe they don’t think about the people who work in shoddy conditions to provide that merchandise for sale. Who knows.

Claiming a Christian influence isn’t good enough, though. Not to my way of thinking. It might create an assumption that they’re better people, but does that give them leave never to be called upon to prove it?

I don’t have a good end to this. Feel free to add any thoughts that come to mind.

I may have to see Green Lantern after all

I don’t know why I go to comic-themed movies when I never read the comics in the first place but action is action and they tend to be fun. Now, I’m intrigued on a completely different level, though; I found an article by a known satirist (known to his fans, at least. Not me, personally) where he complains about Green Lantern’s pledge getting rewritten for the movie to take God out of it. First I had to look up the pledge; like I said, I don’t read comics. Assuming Scribd has it right:

In Brightest Day
In Blackest Night
No Evil Shall Escape My Sight
Let those who worship evil’s might
Beware My Power
Green Lantern’s Light

I don’t see God in there. Do you? Maybe that’s the satire waving? I’ve always had trouble with satire. You can’t see the joke when you don’t have any idea what they’re mocking. In this case I knew without his help that he’s mocking arguments regarding the addition of “Under God” into America’s Pledge of Allegiance and requests made lately to pull it the hell out again. Now I’ll quote some of what Jef With One F wrote about this as a letter to DC Comics and Warner Brothers, claiming he was originally taught the GL pledge complete with God part:

I, for one, refuse to believe that the Central Power Battery on the Lantern Corps’ homeworld of Oa that each Lantern uses to recharge their power rings while reciting the oath can possibly be powered by anything other than the will of God. And how else would a man be able to overcome the being of ultimate fear, Parallax? Through simple humanity and willpower? I doubt that.

Green Lantern’s power ring makes the imagination of the wearer into reality in the form of solid light constructs. Such a power cannot remain in the hands of humanity without acknowledging the rule of God. Failing to do so within the Lantern’s solemn oath risks our children forgetting God’s place in comic books.

It’s a good thing that he notes in the beginning about being a satirist or else I might have been completely taken in by this loony spiel. I can see people truly believing that last line is an argument worth making, however. After all, the library has manga bibles kicking around, and child-friendly comic bible stories, Bibleman videos

—
a Christian superhero, if that really needed to be explained, but it helps to see that this man is the inspiration for the maker of this freakish looking cake:

—

and they likely purchased some of Zonderkidz’ revamped Christian Berenstain Bears books when those were published, too. There’s always interest in Christian themed entertainment.

IE) Kentucky recently got a crapload of tax rebates for their proposed Noah’s Ark Park. Private, unnamed investors are picking up the rest of the millions necessary to make this monstrosity float.

The latest project would will include a replica of the Tower of Babel, a first century village, theatres, lecture halls, retail shops, restaurants, a petting zoo and live animal shows featuring giraffes and elephants.

Zovath said he expects groundbreaking in August.

Rob Hunden, a consultant who reviewed the proposal for the Tourism Development and Finance Authority, said the project is expected to draw nearly 1.4 million visitors a year.

Gov. Steve Beshear has said he favours tax incentives for the ark park that is projected to create 600 to 700 full-time jobs and have an economic impact of more than US$250 million in its first year of operation.

The mission of the project, Zovath said, is to lend credence to the biblical account of a catastrophic flood and to dispel doubts that Noah could have fit two of every kind of animal in an ark.

Could they have found a better waste of money? Sure. They could have bought everyone in the country a copy of the Leather Gold and Silver Monopoly (retail $7570) or a Crystal Ergoripado Vaccuum ($18993) or anything else on this list instead of throwing money into that park idea, but that is where all this money’s going. Never mind that it will cater to ignorance and lack scientific credibility; it’s necessary job creation, dammit. We’re smack dab in the middle of an economic downturn, dontcha know! Gawd!

Yeah, so anyway, I might throw a little money toward DC Comics and Warner Brothers this weekend. Every once in a while a person craves extraordinary heroics. Especially when the future looks a little bleak…

—
Edit: 2:48PM Of course, reviews are coming in now that seem to indicate this is the latest turd to be delivered to weekend movie goers so it’s probably just as well I keep my $10 for another season of downloadable IT Crowd…

A link between religion and consumerism?

Here’s a story up my alley. I’m reading a book right now called Can’t Buy my Love: How advertising changes the way we think and feel. Jean Kilbourne wrote it more than a decade ago so it’s not completely up to date but it’s likely that trends she noted then will only have gotten worse now.

I don’t watch a lot of television so I rarely see commercials. What I tend to do is wait until the library gets something and then borrow it. People like me are the reason imbedded advertising has gotten to the point it’s at. I was watching Bones Season 6 this past week and it was hard not to notice who paid for the privilege to have their cars in the show. Three different episodes praised three technical wonders available in vehicles these days: cameras in an SUV that help you parallel park, GPS devices that react to voice instead of touch activation, and a driver attention system (in a Prius, I recall) that alerts everyone if the car drifts over the double line. All impressive, and all added into the conversations between characters. In two cases, the writers did an okay job of making the tech part of the program (not getting lost, and erratic driving catching the eyes of police) but in the third it was clearly slapped in to sell the SUV’s safety rating, not so Daisy and Angela could bond.

Long digression, sorry. The article is out of New Zealand and research done at the Universities of Canterbury and Bath to track the buying habits of Christians. Results seemed to indicate that Christians didn’t want to buy products advertised in showy or materialistic ways but would buy based on the perceived quality of the product.

As part of the study more than 400 people from Britain were surveyed about advertising for a luxury watch. Half of the survey group identified themselves as being religious and believed materialism was wrong.

“We found that expensive luxury watches that were advertised as being showy or an item of envy were frowned upon by religious consumers,” Dr Veer said.

While non-religious consumers had no preference, religious consumers were 25 per cent more likely to purchase the watch if they saw the advertisement which did not portray it as a materialistic item.

“It’s a really interesting case of being torn between the consumer driven world that encourages material wealth and one’s religious beliefs,” he said.

The results helped explain how many Christians can accumulate and store materialistic items despite the Biblical teachings against it.

The last line of the article is what reminded me of the book I’m reading:

The research could benefit advertisers seeking to target these groups.

Here’s the thing. The ad agencies that get hired to promote companies know a lot of tricks already so they’re probably very aware of what works to lure Christians into spending money. I expect this study was completely unnecessary and uncovered nothing advertisers didn’t know already.

I’m not very far into the book I mentioned above but Kilbourne provides a lot of examples from a publication called Advertising Age in which companies place ads to sell their products to advertisers. It gets pretty sinister sounding as she piles up evidence that the marketing of products is all about manipulating the desired audience. (I see that the Ad Age website has a whole section devoted to Hispanic marketing.)

From page 48:

“Black people drink too much,” says an ad for the Black Newspaper Network. “Too much, that is,” the copy continues, “for you to ignore.” “Diario Las Américas readers Pour It On,” echoes an ad in Advertising Age for a Spanish-language newspaper sold in Florida. The truth is that African-Americans and Latinos don’t drink nearly as much as Caucasians, but they represent desirable new territory to the alcohol industry. And so the African-American and Latino media hand them over.

Perhaps this wouldn’t matter very much if it didn’t affect the content of the media. But it does. “Uncork the black market,” says an ad for Ebony magazine in Advertising Age, which promises alcohol advertisers that “nothing sells black consumers better.” A few years later Ebony did a story on the ten most serious health problems affecting blacks–but did not include the fact that alcohol is related to nine out of the ten health problems. There were eleven alcohol ads in this same issue of Ebony.

Kilburne mentions similar set-ups in ladies magazines, alerting readers to bizarre health dangers (beware of burning toasters!) on one page but advertising cigarettes on others, never once mentioning in the articles how bad cigarettes are for people. Can’t offend the ones who buy ad space, after all. A loss of revenue like that would cripple them, if not kill them completely.

I’m up to page 64 where she quotes media scholar Mark Crispin Miller. He suggests that people these days tend to have less tolerance toward things that are depressing. “I think ultimately it has to do with advertising, with a vision of life as a shopping trip.” This statement reminded me of something worth verifying. It turns out that while George W. Bush didn’t exactly tell Americans to “go shopping” after 9/11, he did encourage people to fly to tourist destinations like Disney World and have fun. I’m sure more than a few people did just that and built a fantasy that all was right with the world, yet spent like there was no tomorrow.

It’s truly a pipe dream to think we can’t be bought, manipulated or intimidated by the media and our saturated surroundings. Maybe we can trick ourselves into thinking we’re unaffected by advertising but maybe the bigger trick was done by the advertisers themselves. Like the old adage about the smartest thing the devil ever did, he let people think he didn’t exist.

Movie theatre won’t run Jesus Easter ad

It’s a short article from the Orange County Register:

ALISO VIEJO – Members of a local church are saying an ad for their Easter service was deemed too controversial to run because it named Jesus.

Pastor Mike Fabarez said Compass Bible Church tried to pay for an ad to run at a local movie theater for its annual Easter service at UC Irvine’s Bren Center, an event that draws about 5,000 people. The church typically advertises its large events, working with local television, print media and even placing ads on bus stop shelters.

This time, the ad was rejected, something Fabarez said he didn’t expect. A spokeswoman for NCM Media Networks, which handles advertising for many local theaters, said in a statement Compass Bible Church chose not to revise the ad to meet content guidelines.

No image of the ad is provided but the church put it on Youtube. It’s a quick watch and nothing overly controversial, just advertising why they believe the resurrection really happened. The answer to that question can only be found at the event on the day, obviously.

The OC Register is polling readers to find out what they think about the ad and comments run the gamut:

Jesus? That’s the guy who mows and blows my lawn every 2 weeks.

I think the production value of the ad is higher than some of the movies I’ve seen lately.

It’s obnoxious that a theater won’t take money to display the name of Jesus, the central figure of beliefs shared by 2.2 of the 6.8 billion people on the planet, while theaters have no problem charging a total of $540 million worldwide to show a film whose main premise is that Jesus was married and had children whose decedents still live today.

On easter, at our home, we worship a 75$ honey baked ham.

There’s more, of course. And the few comments placed by admitted atheists have gotten the most replies, all of which pull the topic off the ad completely. Nobody can let what an atheist says rest unchallenged. Especially if there’s still a chance to save him…

WICKEDWHITE makes a good point to end with:

Rejection and Banned have two completely different meanings

The church is calling it a “banned commercial” since that’s how they want to present their side of this but theatres should have the right to reject any advertisements they want. I can see why a theatre wouldn’t want to look like it promotes a belief system. Promoting Coke or Pepsi, sure; they’re selling drinks at the concession. They want you to think about buying a drink. They don’t want you to think about buying a religion just before the credits roll on the latest kill-fest to hit the big screen. Jesus died for your sins, now sit there and enjoy some sinning!

This really seems like a waste of time and energy to kick up a fuss over but I expect the service will still see a better turnout because of it. Any press is good press, right?

Moral of the story: be careful how you advertise religion in school

I found an article about a school in Missouri and a kid who got in trouble over her “Jesus, he scares the hell out of you” t-shirt. Christian themed clothes tend to be tacky by design (almost kitchy, if that word can ever be applied to shirts), but fashion sense or no sense, I think the school was right to claim the word “Hell” was inappropriate for any class wear. 12 year old Michelle Ramirez was told she’d have to turn it inside out or call home for another. When she did called home, her mother said she could wear it if she wanted, so she remained in school with it that day, but wound up sitting in the guidance office instead of class.

Her mother insists Michelle chose to wear it as literal, like people would wear any promotional or advertising shirts. To that I say, this makes the school even more right. I’ll quote from another t-shirt selling site:

A T shirt is read 3,000 times before it winds up in the
rag bag. You can be a walking message of God’s love.

If her intention was to ultimately proselytize with it, that’s nothing she should be doing during school hours. Christian Post has a quote from her mother’s interview with Fox news:

“To us, hell is a place… It’s not… She’s not using it as a slang. So if she’s not using it as a slang, then the shirt should be okay,” commented her mother, Christina Ramirez.

“It’s federal law that you cannot ask a student to remove an emblem, insignia, or garment including a religious emblem,”

I don’t know if that’s true or not, but this isn’t a case of a cross or a rosary, though. It’s a garish t-shirt and if the school has a policy against certain types of clothes and if this shirt qualifies because the word “hell” is stamped on it (no matter how the family interprets the word), then they have every right to uphold their policy here. From the Post again:

Though Ramirez and her family felt a double standard in the school’s position, where other classmates wore shirts with gang insinuations – one shirt even reading, “We kick balls” – she stated that she would not wear the shirt to school again after she and her father read a passage in the Bible on Thursday that said Jesus respected the law of the land.

Apparently she got the shirt through her youth group, and the designed picked to be intentionally in-your-face. It shouldn’t be considered religious persecution, but I’m sure that’s how Ramirez and company want to be spinning it. If the school has let her wear other Jesus themed clothes without comment before, she’s probably not banned from doing it. Maybe the school will have to take another look at their clothing guidelines and make sure all the students are aware of what’s appropriate for class wear and start cracking down on more kids.

This has put me in mind of a couple questionable shirts I had once. One featured a cartoon duck with the words “Duck off!” stamped on it and I swear by everything chocolate that I did not make any connection to a swear word at the time. I was mortified when teachers told me to turn it inside out and call home. I don’t think I ever wore it again either.

The other was a Bart Simpson “Underachiever and proud of it, man!” shirt. There wasn’t much teachers could say about that one, given my grades. Clearly I wore it ironically.

Personally, I think it’s unfortunate that kids are taught to believe in hell in the first place. Surely a message about Jesus being great could be include less ultimatum, believe or else…