Caffeinated Thoughts |
- If You Have to Call It Food, It Probably Isn’t
- The Grey Matter: Thinking Through Fifty Shades
- Is the GOP in the Grips of Hyperorthodoxy?
- The Government Con Game
| If You Have to Call It Food, It Probably Isn’t Posted: 09 Jul 2012 04:06 AM PDT Or: It Ain't Easy Being Cheesy.  Everyone Wants to Be the Big Cheese
Fellow CT Contributor, Christopher Levi, observes a package of flat yellow slices which labels itself as "pasteurized process cheese food" and Mr. Levi remains unconvinced. ”If you have to call it food, it probably isn't”, he says. Politicians sometimes say "Have no doubt, I am sincere." Applying the Levi Principal, we could say that if he has to say he's sincere, he probably isn't. Former Senator Rick Santorum is coming through Iowa Tuesday on a six-city "Thank You" Tour to thank voters for his narrow caucus win over Governor Mitt Romney in January. If you are from Iowa, you remember all the things Santorum said about Romney last year: He's questionably pro-life, one of the most liberal guys we have ever had, and he doesn't hold our values. You know: all the standard fare. Never mind that Santorum had endorsed Romney in 2008, calling him a clear conservative who shares our values.Find both his 2008 endorsement and a sampling of anti-Romney rants in one video (thankfully for Santorum, taken at different times): After he dropped out this time around, and in violation of a pledge he made before God not to support anybody who didn't sign the Family Leader pledge (which Romney didn't), Santorum re-endorsed Romney, without blinking or apologizing. And recently he told a gathering of social-conservative voters that Governor Mitt Romney was "solid" on social issues. "I've talked to Governor Romney," said Santorum, "and I have no doubt, and I mean this in all sincerity, I have no doubt he understands the centrality of family." And I believe him, I sincerely do. Oh! And have a processed cheese food sandwich, on me.
____________________________ Shedlock has written a book entitled, With Christ in the Voting Booth.
Link to this post!        |
| The Grey Matter: Thinking Through Fifty Shades Posted: 09 Jul 2012 01:26 AM PDT "I want you to behave in a particular way, and if you don't, I shall punish you…" Granted, it's not the traditional way Prince Charming wooed his lady; but then, fairytales didn't typically include rape, bondage and written contracts of non-disclosure. That is, until now. Fifty Shades of Grey From humble roots as a homespun hobby, the popular Fifty Shades of Grey series has cultivated new standards for both marketing and morality in the digital age. Having sold more than ten million copies in its first six weeks of stateside publication, Grey captured an easy 25% of the market for adult fiction. And it hasn't stopped yet. In the four months since its American debut, the trilogy has dominated virtually every major print and e-book list—from the USA Today to the New York Times where it leads in no less than four major categories. Publishing rights to the series have been sold in another 37 countries, including the United Kingdom, where Fifty Shades of Grey achieved the record for the highest ever weekly paperback sales. Grey is the New Green No one is more surprised at Grey's popularity than its author, the heretofore obscure E.L. James, a.k.a. Erika Leonard. James first conceived Grey as a sort of online hobby, taking her cues from vampires "Edward" and "Bella," a la Twilight fame. Once the series gained a following, James reworked the story, vested her characters with new names, and stripped them of their parasitic proclivities. Eventually Grey was removed from the web and picked up by a small Australian publishing house. Vintage Books later saw the stateside potential and laid out seven-figures for the publishing rights—an investment that has more than paid off. Recently named one of Time Magazine's 100 Most Influential It’s a fantasy obviously shared by others—many, many others. Readers’ greed for all things Grey has fueled everything from a Hollywood bidding war to a proprietary line of Grey-inspired perfume, clothes, lingerie, and more. With a film adaptation underway, James hopes to carry the momentum forward with a new series geared toward teens. Husband Niall even landed a book contract, giving the couple a share in the children's market as well.[2] But the cultural impact of the series transcends book sales. It has in fact, sparked a new wave in book trends. In an interview, Grey publisher Anne Messitte told the New York Times, "We're making a statement that this is bigger than one genre. The people who are reading this are not only people who read romance. It's gone much broader than that."[3] Grey, it would appear, has tapped something deep within the female psyche. So, who exactly is Christian Grey and why has his story created such a stir? Characters and Synopsis. The history of Christian Grey is not burdened with deep thought. That the ethics are skewed, few will deny; fewer still deny James’s claim that she’s “not a great writer.”[4] By all accounts, the author has served up a mash of bad morals, bad characters, and (if it were possible) even worse writing. As the story goes,[5] Christian Grey and Anastasia Steele began their relationship with a contract that reads in part— “The Submissive may request her release at any time, such request may be granted at the discretion of the Dominant, subject only to the Submissive’s rights under clauses 2-5 and 8 above.” Grey's jealousy, narcissism, and aberrant abusive is, we are led to assume, offset by his wealth, social standing, and dashing good looks. Ana, on the other hand, has beauty and a brand of intelligence (supposedly) enhanced by naiveté. In a next-day dialogue that followed Ana's outing with a male friend, Christian confronted Ana— Ana: Are you going to hit me? Christian: “Yes, but it won’t be to hurt you. I don’t want to punish you right now. If you’d caught me yesterday evening, well, that would have been a different story.” One might wonder why, if not with a view toward correction, one human might hit his fellow being. The answer is chillingly plain—he did it for pleasure. Indeed, however much the author might wish to pose her heroine as a smart and strong-willed young woman, Ana's bruised flesh reads differently. Reader Response What is it about Christian Grey that makes him irresistible to so many? How is it that women elevate savagery to the station of romance? James voiced her opinion in an interview, "Once you’re in charge of your job, your house, your children, getting the food on the table, doing all of this, all of the time, it’d be nice for someone else to be in charge for a bit maybe,” [6] But "in charge for a bit maybe" isn't exactly what Grey has in mind—and Ana knows it. “What do I say? Because I think I love you, and you just see me as a toy. Because I can’t touch you, because I’m too frightened to show you any affection in case you flinch or tell me off or worse – beat me?” It's a point Grey never attempts to hide, telling her, "It's the fact that you are mine to do with as I see fit – ultimate control over someone else." So saith masochists, evil dictators, and stalkers ’round the world. Opposing Voices Sadly, Christians have remained largely silent on the topic. To date, Grey's only real opposition has come—not from the Church, but from an unlikely association. Libraries, that unoffending mainstay of the quiet intellectual, have hunkered along dividing lines: those that feature the book are besieged by crowds impatient for Grey;[7] others, having refused to carry the book, are besieged by the ACLU.[8] In an open letter[9] to the Brevard County library, groups petitioned for the reinstatement of the books on the peculiar grounds that "residents rely on the library… to 'think more and become smarter.'"[10] But libraries aren't the only ones opposing Fifty Shades of Grey. Feminists deplore the series as an affront to the social and political gains of the past thirty years. To them, Grey represents a return to the dark age of patriarchal ethics. However, the feminist voice disqualifies itself by virtue of its own party line; to wit, "a woman's right to choose." For one thing, female prerogative is driving the market for all things Grey. For another, whatever one might think of her relationship with Grey, the fact remains: Ana did choose. This so-named "freedom to choose" is a concept much dwelt upon by the author—a device necessary to offset the illegal nature of Grey's dominance. For example, when Ana protested the pain of a recent beating, Grey responded in an email, "Subject: You Didn't Call the Cops." "… For the record—you stood beside me knowing what I was going to do. You didn't at any time ask me to stop – you didn't use either safe word. You are an adult – you have choices. Quite frankly, I'm looking forward to the next time my palm is ringing with pain… [there is] no place to run. I would find you. I can track your cell phone—remember?" Where Do We Go From Here? “C. S. Lewis memorably said that a nation's culture is the dress of its religion—in other words, the way in which a society conducts itself, its institutions, value systems, and family and national life, is rooted in what it believes.”[11] If Lewis was right, what commentary does Grey offer on modern day belief? Indeed, all of this begs the question—what on earth is happening? If James is influential (as she obviously is), what is she doing with that influence? What kind of world is her ideology preparing? And what kind of future is our silence arranging for our kids? Grey raises implications we cannot afford to ignore. To be sure, this is not a review of the book; rather, my aim is a critique of the culture that foments and embraces a Grey mindset. If we are to be wise and discerning, if we are to be a people who understand the times, who know what we ought to do (1 Chronicles 12:32), if we are to serve the purpose of God in our own generation, (Acts Acts 13:36), we must engage the culture that consumes Shades of Grey. Over the next few days, I plan to explore these questions further, beginning with tomorrow’s topic: why should Christians care? [1] http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/47066520/ns/today-books/t/fifty-shades-author-stunned-success-erotic-trilogy/#.T_p–fXNnuw [3] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/10/business/media/an-erotic-novel-50-shades-of-grey-goes-viral-with-women.html?pagewanted=all) [4] http://www.forbes.com/sites/meghancasserly/2012/04/17/fifty-shades-of-grey-author-el-james-today-show-excruciating/ [5] Please note, I have not read the book. Nor do I plan to do so. Direct quotes from the book have been gleaned from online reviews, including a sampling of the more than 11,000 Goodreads reader reviews. [7] Some libraries report upwards of two thousand hold requests. [8] Recently, the Florida ACLU linked arms with the National Coalition Against Censorship. See http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/story/2012-05-25/50-shades-of-grey-ban/55211608/1 [11] Colin Hamer, Anne Boleyn: One Short Life That Changed the English-Speaking World (Leominster, UK: Day One Publications, 2007), 24. Link to this post!      |
| Is the GOP in the Grips of Hyperorthodoxy? Posted: 08 Jul 2012 03:43 PM PDT Mike Huckabee is stirring up some controversy with some recent comments in the New York Times Magazine:
Huckabee’s comments are predictably stirring up angst from predictable sources, but does Huckabee have a point? I think so. There’s no doubt in my mind that the Tea Party Revolution has brought positive changes to the GOP. Thanks to the Tea Party, we said bye bye to Arlen Specter, we said farewell to Richard Lugar, we knocked out Bob Bennett, and we saw some great conservatives elected such as Marco Rubio. We’ve communicated to politicians that we’ll hold their feet to the fire when it comes to fiscal conservatism. This is great, particularly against the Republican establishment that support Specter, Lugar, and Charlie Crist. However, all revolutions have their share of excesses and the Tea Party is no different. A couple examples. Take, the massive effort of outsiders to oust Orrin Hatch. There’s one good reason to oppose Orrin Hatch: He’s been in the Senate 36 years. If there were truly a popular move in Utah to stop Hatch from being renominated, the national multi-million dollar onslaught against Hatch by outside groups may have made sense. But, it didn’t. Truth was that unlike Bennett, Hatch had a pretty conservative voting record at around 90% ACU ratings with no major heresies. In terms of fiscal discipline, this is the guy who has been carrying the Balanced Budget Amendment for decades. Seriously, expending all the money and credibility that was spent to oust Hatch was a poor move and while national conservative groups couldn’t seem to tell the difference between minor disagreements on policy and major flaws that demanded a replacement, Utah voters overwhelming renominated Hatch. Another example is the vilification of Jon Bruning in Nebraska. The man is a solid conservative overall even if he was the pick of the state establishment. Seriously, why on Earth does the Tea Party to spend millions of dollars going after people who bare no resemblance to Charlie Crist or Arlen Specter or Richard Lugar but will vote with them 90% of the time. The big question is if the GOP is in the grips of hyperorthodoxy why the heck did Mitt Romney get the nomination? Two words: Newt Gingrich. Gingrich’s campaign was effectively defeated after the Nevada Caucuses, but his supporters soldiered and continued to back him despite the fact he had no prayer. Why? Because Rick Santorum wasn’t conservative enough. Why not? The most commonly cited reason was that Rick Santorum voted against Right-to-Work in the Senate. This was perhaps the stupidest campaign meme for the following reasons:
Of course, none of this mattered to those who cited it. The only way Santorum could have been acceptable to these critics is if he would have ignored the views of his state and committed ritual political suicide on the floor of the Senate to support a bill that would go nowhere. Then there was Senator Santorum’s endorsement of Arlen Specter’s re-election bid, a decision I disagreed with. At the time, the GOP had 51-49 Senate Majority. Santorum believed (rightly) that there would be Supreme Court vacancies in the next term and that Specter’s vote would be critical. Also, that Specter’s opponent Pat Toomey would struggle in the Fall. This may have been accurate given that Toomey only won by 2 points in the biggest Republican year in recent memory in 2010. As for Huckabee, if we go back to 2008, his opponents big issues are his use of executive clemency (which in many cases only allowed convicts to be considered for parole by the State parole board or restored the civil rights of people who have served their sentences.) Another charge is that Huckabee was a big spender in Arkansas and concerns about some of the legislation that moved through the legislature. The first charge stems from lack of understanding of how Arkansas’ system of paroles and clemencies work. The second fails to understand that in Arkansas the Democrats held at least a 3/4 majority in the legislator every year Huckabee was Governor and could override his veto with a simple majority vote. This often forced Huckabee to do things he would rather not to do. For example, an onerous bill regulating home schooling was introduced. A Republican Home Schooled father worked to introduce a less Draconian and got it through the legislature. Had Huckabee vetoed the bill, the legislature would have either overridden his veto or passed a worst bill, and he had The final big charge against Huckabee is that he’s a nanny stater. This comes from the fact that Huckabee sees obesity as a public health problem. Huckabee doesn’t support banning foods or regulating people’s behavior through government force. His actions to address the issue were non-coercive in Arkansas such as offering state employees walking breaks. But because Huckabee acknowledges the obvious, he’s a nanny stater. What we have in the excesses of the modern conservative movement is an inability to distinguish vital issues from trivial ones, a selective demand for 100 percent agreement all the time, and a refusal to pardon any transgression of conservative rules. They can’t tell the difference between a friend who may have disappointed them a few times and a foe. To this group of purists, Lincoln Chafee and Rick Santorum are exactly alike. The problem with this purism will not lead to the enactment conservative values. It will only lead to us tossing perfectly good leaders under the bus due to the fact that they aren’t perfect. Compare this current problem to the maturity of Reason Magazine in 1975 when writing about another flawed conservative by the name of Reagan: Thus, Reagan's record, while generally conservative, is not particularly libertarian. But one's administrative decisions, constrained as they are by existing laws, institutions, and politics, do not necessarily mirror one's underlying philosophy. A reasonable position. If conservatives in the 21st Century had been so open-minded, we may not have Romney as the nominee right now. Link to this post!      |
| Posted: 08 Jul 2012 07:50 AM PDT
The NAACP has a valid point. According to a 2005 University of Texas-Arlington study, people without high school diplomas spent nearly four times as much on lottery tickets than people with a graduate degree education. Blacks spent nearly three times as much as whites on the games. This is not isolated to Texas. A study in Massachusetts found that people earning between $30,000 and $50,000 a year spent nearly 50% more on lottery tickets than those earning between $50,000 and $70,000 a year. In Arizona, those living in poorer zip codes spent five times as much on the lottery as those living in the richer zip codes in the state. The result of who plays the lottery the most is that a disproportionate number of lotto winners live in poverty, lack a good education, and have poor money management habits. For them, receiving a check for seven to nine digits often becomes a horror story filled with a constant barrage of lawsuits, divorces, and trouble with the police. Sixteen year old Callie Rogers won more than $3 million in 2003. By age 22, she was a bankrupt single mother who drove a junker to work. She may have gotten off easy. Bud Post won $16 million in the Pennsylvania Lottery. He died broke, living on $450 a month from Social Security. While he still had the money, his own brother hired a hit man to kill him. Jeffrey Dampier won $20 million in the Illinois Lottery. He was murdered by his sister-in-law. Jack Whittaker won $314.9 million but declared himself unable to pay a judgment against him. Thieves had cleaned out his bank account. The win ruined his marriage and wrecked the life of his granddaughter, who became increasingly isolated and died of a drug overdose. His ex-wife said of the win, “I wish I would have torn the ticket up." The lottery exploits poor players while often doing great harm to the winners, who are unprepared for the large fortune. Libertarians deem this point irrelevant on the reasoning that adults should be free to make stupid and harmful choices. As Texan Dave Anderson declared, “If I make a certain amount, it’s up to me: Should I spend this $5 (on a ticket)? Or should I go buy a loaf of bread and hamburger to feed the kids?” In addition, Libertarians argue an end to the lottery would hurt responsible middle class workers. For only $5, they buy the right to indulge a fantasy of quitting their job after coming into a vast amount of wealth that solves all of their problems. Libertarians' thoughts on gambling are most relevant regarding private gambling. With the lottery, gambling is being sponsored, encouraged, supported, and promoted by the government. There can be no effective check on a system that exploits the poor when the people who can regulate the lottery are the people who profit by it. Alicia Hansen of the National Tax Foundation has rightly called the lotteries a regressive tax and its one that state governments would do best to do without. If we’re to have legal gambling, then have it at casinos and race tracks where it can be regulated. As it is, our state governments are sinking to the level of con men and selling false hope to suckers.
Link to this post!      |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Caffeinated Thoughts To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
If you are looking into making money from your websites by running popup ads - you can use one of the biggest networks - Pop Cash.
RăspundețiȘtergere