Half Past Noon

Just a narcissistic link to a post of mine at Theopol which has a remote chance of interesting my HPN co-conspirators: A theology of suburbs.

In his sermon “Christian Charity,” Jonathan Edwards argues that Christian virtue should animate both private (voluntary) giving as well as legally-imposed public welfare. The two sources of poor relief need not be set at odds with each other (as some of his contemporaries were apparently suggesting). Further, the historical circumstances do not fundamentally alter this relationship; both 1st century Christians under unregenerate rule and 18th century New England Puritans have incentive to support both private and public poor relief. While the two sources may have different aims and modes of relief, they are not inherently rivals, even as private charity is preferred:

Nor do I suppose it was ever the design of the law, requiring the various towns to support their own poor, to cut off all occasion for Christian charity: nor is it fit there should be such a law. It is fit that the law should make provision for those that have no estates of their own; it is not fit that persons who are reduced to that extremity should be left to so precarious a source of supply as a voluntary charity. They are in extreme necessity of relief, and therefore it is fit that there should be something sure for them to depend on. But a voluntary charity in this corrupt world is an uncertain thing. Therefore the wisdom of the legislature did not think fit to leave those who are so reduced, upon such a precarious foundation for subsistence.

In recent radio show, that was broadcast on more than 400 affiliates, [Glenn Beck] told his listeners to leave any church that uses the phrases “social justice” or “economic justice.” “I beg you, look for the words ’social justice’ or ‘economic justice’ on your church Web site,” he said.

“If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words. Now, am I advising people to leave their church? Yes!” He went on to say, “If you have a priest pushing social justice go find another parish. Go alert your bishop and tell them. [Ask them] are you down with this whole social justice thing?” (from the National Post)

I know that none of us really care what Glenn Beck thinks (or FOX News, for that matter), but I couldn’t help but post this quote. Later in the article, it’s noted that Beck credits “communists and Nazis” for the invention of “social justice.”

That’s right: watch out for those bad ideas. They’ll turn you into sadistic goosesteppers in no time, and just like zombies, there’s nothing you can do about it. Except be afraid, of course. Everybody be afraid and beware of your neighbours. You never know what they’ll do to you.

First, a disclaimer. Davey tends to rebuke my criticisms of localism with these words: “But Frank, I don’t know any localist who believes that.” Hopefully I do a better job this time.

Austin recently re-tweeted a link to this, a write-up about an author doing his best to save, or at least “treasure,” local bookstores. For the record, I think this is cool. A good independent bookstore is a wonderful thing. Like many others, I rarely enjoy a visit to Barnes and Noble, Chapters, Books-a-Million, etc. They’re sterile places with a counterfeit sense of familiarity and comfort. Their book selection is rarely interesting, and I generally find their books overpriced. (Though, in their defense, publishers are probably more to blame for that.)

Yet, I confess that I’m tired of hearing people complain that big-box stores like B&N killed the local bookstore. (Or, for that matter, that Amazon is carrying on that trend.) I don’t really believe this storyline, and in the words of the immortal Calvin, I wish they’d shut up and stop whining.

That sounds harsh, I know, so let me explain myself.

I understand that big-box bookstores have often received tax benefits and other such incentives not available to smaller bookstores. And I agree that this is unfair, even wicked. I’m as anti-interventionist as any of you.

But why should this be the last word? Too often, I think that local bookstores use this as a crutch. Instead of thinking, “How can I be better than Barnes & Noble?” they resign themselves to a fate of dying relevancy. “I’ll never compete be able to compete with them!” To give this a concrete example, we tend to assume that You’ve Got Mail captures this scene with truth: The Shop Around the Corner just can’t stand up to Fox Books. It’s impossible. So let’s shed a tear, share stories about our Spanish lovers, and wait for the big bad businessman to bring us flowers.

I also find it odd that in all the articles I’ve ever seen (and I’ve seen a lot of them), I’ve never seen anyone ask, “What have local bookstores done wrong?” As someone who’d like to start my own little bookstore one day, I’ve got more than a few opinions on this matter; but they’re not founded upon anyone else’s insight. I’d be much more willing to believe the “bad big box store” line if I saw more self-examination on the part of the independent bookstore. People who complain instead of looking to grow usually will only see their problems grow, so it’s no surprise that more local bookstores have closed in the past several years. After all, who wants to go and buy books from someone who’s going to share their gripes with you?

Before you jump all over me and call me a greedy capitalist pig, remember what I said at the beginning: I love a good local bookstore. Really, I do. The trouble is, I don’t believe that a local bookstore is good in and of itself. I’ve been to plenty of bad ones, and a bad local bookstore is much, much worse (imho) than any Barnes & Noble or Borders. Heck, it’s even worse than a Waldenbooks.

I’d love to see local bookstores blossom. And if I ever get a chance to do a book tour, I’d love to do local bookstore stops. But two things need to happen first: one, I have to write something worth reading again, and two, local bookstores need to start viewing their “predicament” as a “challenge.” There are ways around this problem, if only you try and tackle them.

An endnote. I’ve dropped a lot of generalizations. I know this. I did it on purpose. I know there are top-notch local bookstores out there. Good on you, all of you. I wish I could visit you. I just wish you didn’t have so many siblings that are the opposite. That’s really all I’m getting at.

I’ve been chewing on this post by Pastor Wilson. Like the last, I didn’t find it upsetting, but confusing. I like the argument that cultural sexual guilt creates pharisaical codes of righteousness, but the rest of it is a jumble. Here are a few examples:

“To take one hilarious example, on planet Earth, which is mostly water, we are in a panic over running out of water.”

This is amusing, but skirts the actual discussion. The Earth’s water is 99.9% salt water. Desalination is a very energy-intensive process. One of the main selling points of nuclear energy was that it would make wide-scale water desalination possible. An estimated one in eight people on the planet don’t have access to clean drinking water.

The difficulty is that prior partisan political commitments prevent us from looking at this issue with objectivity. Either we’re draining our aquifers, or we aren’t. The scientific process should be brought to bear in such a quantifiable issue. Conservative commitments prevent some from acknowledging that our irresponsibility might do harm to the created world (e.g., Pastor Wilson derides evangelical Christians who claim this is a “stewardship” issue), and see liberals as hopelessly confounded by their eco-guilt. Liberal commitments prevent some from acknowledging that the problem is solvable, or that man can affect creation for the better. Both get in the way of evaluating the issue Biblically and logically.

Where does Scripture tell us to beware of industralized food chains?

Here’s where the parallel between the Christian schooling movement and the current just economy movement come in handy again. Schaeffer established that the Bible speaks to all areas of life, not just a private religious life. Bahnsen illustrated that the application of the principles of biblical law are still morally binding. Our food system, like everything, can be evaluated in light of Biblical principles. Books like ‘Angels in the Architecture’ attempt to get Christians thinking about changing and creating culture.

And the people who are morally indignant about industrialized food chains are the same ones whose definitions of “natural” change radically as we move from the dining room to the bed room.

Pastor Wilson doesn’t say who he’s reading on the issue, but this statement does a disservice to almost every author I’ve read. Michael Pollan is a notable exception, but even he owes Wendell Berry for his best ideas, and Berry views his food ideas and his anti-progressive sexual ideas as cut from the same cloth (see his Sex, Economy, Freedom & Community). I also recommend reading Joel Salatin – a natural food pioneer, early homeschooler, and committed Christian. There is no disconnect between the dining room and the bedroom for either man.

Christians have been pioneers in this movement. But even if they weren’t, what difference would it make? Pastor Wilson is the person who introduced me to the concept of a co-belligerent (someone who fights alongside you in a cause but is not an ally because of fundamental differences of alleigance). But in this particular issue he does not see the co-belligerence, and accuses Christians I worship with on Sunday of being co-opted by a pagan movement created and sustained by unresolved sexual guilt.

Fortunately, the Christians I know working on this important cultural project are happy, grateful people. They are committed to creating a better way, and convinced that their results will speak for themselves. They are motivated by a divine discontent, yes (again, like the Christian schooling folks), but are fierce in their first loyalty to Christ’s Gospel and the promised renewal of all things.

Chris just sent me this video:

This is a clever idea, and could serve as a stepping-stone to public acceptance of a local currency project. Here are two articles about the same idea:

Follow the Money

Grassroots Stimulus

Another idea to warm people up to local currency would be to create “Buy Local” gift cards, for use in any participating local store.

“America is the wealthiest nation on Earth, but its people are mainly poor, and poor Americans are urged to hate themselves…. It is in fact a crime for an American to be poor, even though America is a nation of poor. Every other nation has folk traditions of men who were poor but extremely wise and virtuous, and therefore more estimable than anyone with power and gold. No such tales are told by American poor. They mock themselves and glorify their betters.”
- Kurt Vonnegut

Around the time that the young Sam Walton opened his first stores, John Kennedy redeemed a presidential campaign promise by persuading Congress to extend the minimum wage to retail workers, who had until then not been covered by the law. Congress granted an exclusion, however, to small businesses with annual sales beneath $1 million — a figure that in 1965 it lowered to $250,000.

Walton was furious. The mechanization of agriculture had finally reached the backwaters of the Ozark Plateau, where he was opening one store after another. The men and women who had formerly worked on small farms suddenly found themselves redundant, and he could scoop them up for a song, as little as 50 cents an hour. Now the goddamn federal government was telling him he had to pay his workers the $1.15 hourly minimum. Walton’s response was to divide up his stores into individual companies whose revenues did not exceed the $250,000 threshold. Eventually, though, a federal court ruled that this was simply a scheme to avoid paying the minimum wage, and he was ordered to pay his workers the accumulated sums he owed them, plus a double-time penalty thrown in for good measure.

Wal-Mart cut the checks, but Walton also summoned the employees at a major cluster of his stores to a meeting. “I’ll fire anyone who cashes the check,” he told them.

It’s from a very progressive source, The American Prospect, but it’s too funny not to post. Has a definite ‘robber-baron’ feel.

Update: blogger slacktivist runs down why Wal-Mart’s ridiculous check cashing service is less of a rip-off than the banking system is.

According to the press release attached to this video, most egg producers do this.

According to Mercy for Animals, male chicks are of no use to the industry because they can’t lay eggs and don’t grow large or quickly enough to be raised profitably for meat. That results in the killing of 200 million male chicks a year. The United Egg Producers [trade group for egg farmers] confirmed that figure and the practice behind it.

“There is, unfortunately, no way to breed eggs that only produce female hens,” said spokesman Head. “If someone has a need for 200 million male chicks, we’re happy to provide them to anyone who wants them. But we can find no market, no need.”

Using a grinder, Head said, “is the most instantaneous way to euthanize chicks.”

First, if you’re my wife you’re not allowed to watch this. Secondly, a disclaimer: I didn’t watch this with the sound on, and I didn’t finish it.

Let me see if I can be coherent. Let me be clear: the capacity for most of the animal rights movement to be more concerned about animal suffering than human suffering is apalling, so if the narrator says anything ridiculous, set that aside.

I’m sure there’s no fun way to kill an animal, and most uninitiated people from urban settings would probably be uncomfortable with the everyday realities of the most ideal farm setting. I really don’t have any problem with farmers having to kill animals – part of my desire to reclaim a life that’s more local and agrarian is a desire to be more grateful for the sacrifices that go into providing food for me.

But how could anyone be comfortable with this? I can’t possibly be grateful for my eggs after learning about this mind-numbingly disgusting practice. The industrialization and inhumanity of this are evident – the process robs dignity from everyone involved.

I wondered whether or not small farmers kill their male chickens. Some of them probably do, and as I’ve thought about it I’ve realized that I don’t have a problem with that. My problem is – wait for it – with the philosophy of the industrial food system, which treats animals as machines to be exploited rather than recipients of human stewardship and dominion.

And now we come to paragraph five. I believe that technically speaking I am now on what the experts refer to as “a tear”. That makes this one a bonus. How long will otherwise intelligent people trot out the claim that modern industrial farming is necessary to feed large populations of people?

Ok, reeling this back in. Gabe, what’s your take on all this? You’re the only real farmer I know well enough to ask who’s also a friend enough to not be alienated by the virtual spittle.

I haven’t written something in forevs, so here’s the new newness: Don’t Read the News! My favorite bit o’ bs from it: Liberal bias is to be expected in the news, because the news prioritizes change over permanence, and that’s hostile to a conservative outlook. Like everything I do, I mean it all with an almost painful sincerity.