Half Past Noon

HT: Radiohead At Ease

A song for Saturday.

20/20 had a special on poverty in Appalachia. You can watch the whole thing via a link on the top right of this page. It had dueling banjos and 30-year-olds with no teeth and no GED. On the whole, though, it was less exploitative than I thought. If you’re up for an hour of poverty and despair I encourage you to check it out.

Winners

20/20 and ABC. Highest ratings 20/20 has gotten in a long time, and they didn’t look like total idiots.

Lots of hard-working people. A woman running a clinic where you pay only what you can afford, who protects her perscription drugs with a gun. A dentist who spent $150,000 turning a semi-truck into a mobile dentist office. Social workers, teachers, coaches, and even one coal-mine owner.

Losers

Christians. Even though the documentary project was co-sponsored by a Christian mission, and I would venture to guess that everyone portrayed in the documentary is a Christian, it’s hardly even mentioned. When a little girl whose mother is addicted to Oxycontin sings “Nothing But the Blood” on the unfinished porch of their trailer, I winced.

Americans. Scathing quote: “When the banking industry melts down, it’s like ‘Oh no, we have a structural problem.’ When folks in Appalachia or the inner city are poor, it’s their fault… why don’t they pull themselves up by their bootstraps?”

Corporate America. Appalachia has the highest incidence of toothlessness of any region in the US. Everyone drinks Mountain Dew constantly, and Pepsi got all angry and defensive when asked politely about it.

Corporate America, Again: Mining companies chew through people and towns, leaving burnt-out shells of both when there’s nothing left to exploit.

Corporate America III, Medical Establishment: It has long been suspected that drug companies use Appalachia as a dumping-ground for unsuccessful drugs, and the area has a higher rate of prescription drug abuse than most major cities. Last year the maker of OxyContin settled a lawsuit for $634 million for claiming that the drug was less addictive than other similar drugs. This does not directly indict the drug companies, but somewhere along the line – drug companies, doctors, pharmacists – there’s a major ethical breakdown.

Apparently “irreverant take on Jane Austen” is the high-concept of the moment. I’m pretty excited about the forthcoming Pride and Prejudice and Zombies from Quirk Books, but it turns out that it’s just the beginning: Pride and Predator is a new movie from Elton John’s production company. According to the release, the movie “veers from the traditional period costume drama when an alien crash lands and begins to butcher the mannered protags, who suddenly have more than marriage and inheritance to worry about.”

This is another example of the idea that there’s a Hollywood curse – one that says that two powerful people have the same idea at much the same time, and end up making movies on the same subject which come out in the same year. Once you start noticing it, it seems like it happens all the time.

PS: After spending way too much time looking for a list of examples, I found one on Cracked.com. Enjoy.

So. I have finally encountered “the rub” in N.T. Wright’s Surprised by Hope: the bit about economics.

Allow me a few “preface” points. First, I realize that this is not the heart of Wright’s argument. (I love this book very much and consider it lifechanging.) Second, what I have to say is a personal statement: please keep that in mind. Third, I am no expert in these matters. What I offer here is merely the best sense I can make of my own gleanings and meditations. Fourth, I make no claims to 100% sound logic or clear thinking. It’s late, I never really understood all those danged symbols, and the brain doesn’t work that straightly anyway. If you can point out my errors, miscalculations, or misjudgments, I will truly be most grateful.

To proceed, the quote:

The Cold War years enabled the United States to build up its persona as God’s answer to communism. Many conservative churches there still live by the belief that what’s good for America is good for God—with the result, for instance, that if their country needs to produce more acid rain in order to keep up car production, then God must be happy with it and anyone who talks about pollution or is disappointed that the president didn’t sign the Kyoto protocol is somehow anti-Christian or is simply producing a “baptized neosocialism,” as one reviewer accused me of. Rampant belief in the rapture lends strong support to this, as we saw earlier: Armageddon is coming, so who cares what state the planet is in? The irony is that those American churches that protest most vocally against the teaching of Darwinism in their schools are often, in the public policies, supporting a kind of economic Darwinism, the survival of the fittest in world markets and military power.
– N.T. Wright, Surprised by Hope, pages 219-220.

[1] I am not an economist. To be honest, I’ve disliked economics for a long time, despite the fact that my father taught it to me in high school. (Sorry, Dad. I love you, I promise.)

[2] My father (the economist) taught me long ago that just because a person gets one thing right, doesn’t mean that they’re white as bleach.

[3] The common accusation against conservative Christians is this: they have fallen to the temptation of dualism (that is, thinking merely in terms of “right” and “left”). This is true. Far too often human beings are lazy in their discernment and thinking. Instead of weighing every issue, they side with what is familiar, what rings true. (Is this ideal? Of course not. I won’t even claim it’s inexcusable. However, it is inevitable. No one person can weigh every single issue fairly and come out with a fair answer. We should do our best, of course, but it means we ought to be fair in our condemnation of others who fail in this manner. “Judge not, lest ye be judged.”)

[4] I’d like to suggest that Wright (and possibly others who follow/parallelize his critique) misjudges “conservative churches.” Now, given that he is more experienced with the broader world than I, I admit that it could simply be a case of “being sheltered.” That said, the “conservative churches” that I have been a part of do not fit into Wright’s description. My parents taught me from an early age that “Republican” did not equal “white knight in shining armor.” They may have disliked Bill Clinton, but they did not consider Bob Dole an ideal candidate. And while they did oppose the Kyoto Protocol, they did so not merely because left-wing environmentalists like David Suzuki promoted it; rather, they opposed it because its science was far from certain.

[5] May I level a modest accusation? I will, with or without your permission. I believe that Wright unfairly implies that those who oppose the Kyoto Protocol are close-minded. And I believe that similar unfair implications often lie behind attacks on “capitalism” and the “free market.” Is the “free market” abused? Most definitely. But may I also remind you that many other good things—including the written word, non-totalitarian government, and even (*gasp*) the church—have been similarly abused?

[6] My primary point (resting, perhaps in a muddle fashion, on the previous points) is this: I believe that conservatism is often unfairly condemned. Is it perfect? Of course not. Any conservative worth his or her salt would admit that immediately. And I’m not upset that Wright or others may have problems with conservatism in general. After all, if we conservatives cannot listen to criticism, then we are indeed close-minded.

[7] I believe there is good to be found in the writings of F.A. Hayek, Henry Hazlitt, and Gary North. I also believe that any who treats those writings as solid, unshakeable gospel is a fool. (And I know for a fact that the “free market economists” I know would never do such a thing.) Furthermore, I believe there is much good in “free market economics” to be gleaned, and I’m rather tired of hearing it maligned. Is capitalism perfect? Of course not. No system is, nor ever will be. That’s the beauty of humanity: it can never be systematized.

[8] As I wrote earlier, these points may be muddled. I am not a philosopher, a theologian, or an economist. I am merely a layman, trying to sort this out and make some sense of how these theories can actually be lived out in this world. As such, I’m not looking for a label or to label anyone else. I merely ask, “Can someone please stand up and tell me that there is something worth saving in ‘free market’ economics?” Because until Cavanaugh, Wright, or someone else is willing to do so, I can’t listen to them: they’re merely making the same mistake they accuse others of making.

I know we’re all always reading books, watching movies, and listening to movies. I also know that we’re often on the look-out for new such things to engage and enjoy. Which naturally leads to the following suggestion: why don’t we make a concerted effort to post more about the said things?

This is more for everyone else besides me: I already talk a lot on here about what I’m reading, watching, listening to, etc. I would love to hear, for example, what Gabe thinks of The Dubliners, what Davey is learning about economics, why documentaries fascinate Austin (and others), what Rush and country music are currently doing to Brian, and, well, just any random comment that Chris might be able to offer about whatever it is he’s grooving to these days.

Just a thought. Feel free to be enthused or disregard as the spirit moves you.

I have a soft spot in my heart for conspiracy films. But I’m not sure why, because they always let me down. The trailer awakens my hunger for action mixed with a thought-provoking story, I convince myself that this time will be different than the last, and then two hours later, I leave the theater apologizing to my wife for yet another terrible movie.

(I should note here that I consider the Bourne movies—all three of them—exceptions to this rule.)

If you haven’t already guessed, I consider The International to be a colossal disappointment. Perhaps I should have known that going in, but can you blame me for hoping? Here we have an intelligence operative trying to take down an evil bank that hopes to prosper off the rebellions and wars of third world nations. Which means that in the end, the said evil bank should be crushed, right?

Wrong.

In essence, The International tries to do Andrew Niccol’s Lord of War all over again. “Corruption is insurmountable,” it says. “Break one of us, and another sleazy banker, politician, or special agent will take our place and continue our soul-sucking activities.” Blah, blah, blah. We’ve heard that before. Lots. We don’t need another movie to tell us what we already know, thank you very much.

Perhaps the most offensive part of this film is its non-ending. Owen’s character (INTERPOL agent Louis Salinger) isn’t even given the dignity of an anti-hero. He’s a failure, a lost cause. Nothing he can do can stop the bank, or the corruption, or the warfare. There’s a slim hope that his forcibly alienated partner (played by Naomi Watts) may one day make a small dent. But definitely not enough to turn the tide. Which means that you’ve just spent two hours of your life watching a movie that says, “Hey, true change is impossible.” *yawn*

I will say, however, that it was satisfying to see the Guggenheim riddled with bullet-holes. That, if nothing else, was fun.

I’ve wanted to state this hope for a while, but I’ve refrained for lack of a good quote to back me up. Now I have one.

Why will we be given new bodies [in the resurrection]? According to the early Christians, the purpose of this new body will be to rule wisely over God’s new world. Forget those images about lounging around playing harps. There will be work to do and we shall relish doing it. All the skills and talents we have put to God’s service in this present life—and perhaps too the interests and likings we gave up because they conflicted with our vocation—will be enhanced and ennobled and given back to us to be exercised in his glory.
– N.T. Wright, Surprised by Hope, page 161.

Of course, this is by no means conclusive. But if Wright is correct—if the new heavens and new earth will be a fulfillment of the current heavens and earth—then it is possible that I will one day play hockey with a resurrected body.

And I don’t think it’s a bad thing to hope for, either. Don’t you baseballers dream of perfect fields in heaven?

Dueling banjos? Snake handling? Here’s hoping. This 20/20 special, co-sponsered by a Christian mission, looks like one big exploitative, condescending mess.

When the John Mayer song started playing in this promo, I recoiled in horror. But I also knew that I *had* to see this.