the tindog coffeehouse

Messiah, Superman, Neo.

Source.

Writer Donald Miller (author of one my favorite books, Blue Like Jazz), has a great analysis on his blog about how Apple’s marketing is made to exploit the insecurities of its customers.

Apple products are defended with near-religious zest. But in our zest are we defending a company or our own identities? Perhaps what we’ve been offered is a brand to associate ourselves with, a brand that triggers our survival instincts, revealing we don’t believe we have enough to survive without this association? Perhaps the use of Apple products reveals insecurity more than it reveals confidence. …

In a culture where we are made to feel socially inferior if we don’t use certain brands or products, what does a true counter-culture look like?

If you think about it, the most confident of counter-culture heros aren’t talking on i-phones, wearing designer jeans or jumping in the air in their facebook photos (why are all the hipsters suddenly jumping in their facebook photos? Why didn’t anybody call me to say we were doing that?) but instead are the people most of us might not notice. The reason we don’t notice these people is because they offer us no beneficial association. They buy products because the products work, they buy jeans because they cover their asses, and coats because a certain coat will keep them warm. A true counter culture is not manipulated by the whims of fashion and therefore is not made up of fashionable people.

Miller, an Apple user himself, hits the nail on the head. In the never-ending Mac-vs.-PC debate, the question is never about the quality of the products. In fact, in all of the “I’m a Mac” and “I’m a PC” commercials, almost nothing is said about the actual operating systems. It’s all about image. Apple products are portrayed as the cool choice for cool people, while Windows is for old, dumpy, pencil-pushers. In essence Apple is saying, what brand of technology you use determines how socially relevant you are.

What a horrible message.

Listen, this isn’t about bashing Apple products. I think Apple makes great products. But the choice of what kind of computer we use or what kind of phone we carry shouldn’t be determined by what everyone else around us is using. Simply using a Macbook or an iPhone does not make you cool. It does not make you hip. It does not make you unique.

If a Macbook or an iPhone or an iPod meets your needs better than the alternatives, fine. I’m not condemning anyone for purchasing an Apple product. But we need to stop buying into the hype that who we are as people is measured by what kinds of stuff we surround ourselves with, whether it’s an iPhone or a 50-inch plasma TV or a $500,000 house we can’t afford.

Our true worth has nothing to do with our material possessions. That’s not a message that retailers want you to hear, but it’s absolutely the message I hope to be teaching my daughters. My hope and prayer for them is that as they get older, they’ll be confident enough to forge their own paths based on what they know to be right rather than follow along with what they are told is popular.

That’s not an easy thing to do in this day and age, and unfortunately it might cost them a lot of friends along the way. But that’s OK. Because while everyone is else is clinging to a gadget or a brand or whatever else comes along, they’ll be holding on to something much greater.

Previously:
New Microsoft ‘I’m a PC’ ads: too little too late

Not content to pass a $700,000,000,000 financial bailout and a $787,000,000,000 “stimulus” package, Congress is now pushing a $410,000,000,000 spending bill that includes a whopping $7,700,000,000 worth of pork barrel appropriations.

So what are we getting for all that money? Just ask Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn, who’s been detailing some of the earmarks on Twitter:

• $4.6 million for oyster restoration in Maryland and Virginia
• $10 million for blue crab disaster assistance in Maryland and Virginia
• $8.5 million for grants to zoos and aquariums
• $25 million for the DOJ’s Weed & Seed program
• $7 million to NASA for science museums
• Another $7 million to NASA for visitor centers
• $1.5 million for pinniped research, marine mammal rescue, and Resurrection Bay salmon enhancement in Alaska
• $1 million to “collect accurate, reliable data on red snapper catch, bycatch and mortality”
• $250,000 for Bluefin Tuna Tagging
• $150,000 for lobster research
• $139,000 for the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference
• $7.1 million for conservation of Hawaiian sea turtle populations
• $2 million for the Center for Grape Genetics in Geneva, NY
• $250,000 for Lahontan cutthroat trout restoration

And according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, the bill also includes:

• $713,625 for Woody Biomass at SUNY-ESF
  
• $951,500 for Sustainable Las Vegas
  
• $24,000 for A+ for Abstinence
  
• $300,000 for Montana World Trade Center
• $950,000 for Myrtle Beach International Trade and Convention Center
• $200,000 for Oil Region Alliance
• $190,000 for Buffalo Bill Historical Center, Cody, WY for digitizing and editing the Cody collection
  
• $143,000 for Las Vegas Natural History Museum, Las Vegas, NV, to expand natural history education programs
  
• $238,000 for the Polynesian Voyaging Society, Honolulu, HI, for educational programs
  
• $381,000 for Jazz at Lincoln Center, New York, NY for music education programs

And my personal favorite: $200,000 for a “tattoo-removal violence outreach program” in Los Angeles.

Whew! That’s a lot of bacon!

So much for President Obama’s pledge of no earmarks for 2009. (What, you didn’t think he was serious, did you?)

Ah, to be a U.S. senator. While the common rabble are stuck in our beige cubicles all day, Senator John Cornyn is busy dashing off on a ‘fact-finding’ trip to the Caribbean, courtesy of Texas billionaire Allen Stanford. Yep, the same Allen Stanford accused of committing $8 billion in banking fraud.

“It was strictly a fact-finding trip. They have offices in Houston, and they were doing a lot of business out of Antigua,” said Cornyn spokesman Kevin McLaughlin. “There was nothing untoward or unseemly about the company five years ago.”

Cornyn made the trip with his wife, Sandy, in early November 2004, and he disclosed it within days as required: $7,441, paid for by Stanford Financial Group. …

Cornyn received $19,700, making him the fifth-largest recipient, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

It’s fair to say US Bancorp CEO Richard Davis isn’t a fan of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the $700,000,000,000 government financial bailout rushed through Congress last October.

“It’s just troubled,” the 50-year-old CEO said at the Thrivent Financial for Lutherans’ Business Leaders Forum. …

Davis went on to say in his talk that while government officials marketed the program as a way to entice banks to lend again, TARP actually was designed to give solid banks like U.S. Bancorp some extra cash to buy weaker banks in the system. U.S. Bancorp did just that late last year when it acquired the assets of two failed banks in California, Downey Savings and Loan and PFF Bank & Trust.

“We were told to take it so that we could help Darwin synthesize the weaker banks and acquire those and put them under different leadership,” he said. “We are not even allowed to mention that. … We were supposed to say the TARP money was used for lending.” …

“Now they’re punishing you for having the capital,” he said, adding that he refuses to stand by and let his company become “collateral damage” in an attempt to nationalize the banks.

So what does Davis offer as an alternative solution to government bailouts? Faith.

Near the close of his speech, Davis suggested that what the panic-stricken world needs more than ever now is a little bit of courage and some faith that it will get through this dark period.

“Perhaps what we should do is check ourselves and say, ‘OK, it is tough.’ What can we — any two of us, any five of us, any 200 of us — do to improve the outcome of this difficult circumstance,” Davis said. “And by the way, where’s the faith? … Where’s the belief that something is going to turn here and we might actually have a chance?”

Don’t worry, Mr. Davis. I’m sure President Obama will save us. He is, after all, the messiah.

Previously:
The ‘savior-based economy’
Second half of bailout: How ’bout a little oversight this time?
‘Dude, where’s my $700 billion?’
But he’s still faster than a speeding bullet, right?

While aggressive black “super squirrels” in the UK are busy extinguishing their inferior grey and red brethren in preparation for the ultimate showdown with mankind, it appears that squirrels in France are busy, well, being French.

Previously:
Squirrel Uprising 2: The Revenge
Squirrel Uprising: Rise of the black ‘super squirrel’

For whatever reason, the blog post of mine with the biggest number of hits is a post from last January regarding the demographic differences between McDonald’s and Starbucks. Referencing a Time article, it was one of those posts I just kinda spit out without really thinking too much about it. Little did I know.

Anyway, now thanks to Business Week, we’re ready for round 2 in this fast food battle royale. And this time, the numbers are a little different.

Pew Research Center conducted a national survey, asking adults if they would prefer to live in a place with more McDonald’s or more Starbucks locations, and McDonald’s came out ahead, 43% to 35% overall.

That McDonald’s, with it’s cheap dollar menu and value meals, would trump premium coffeeshop Starbucks during a recession is no surprise. But what did surprise me was how the Pew results differed from Time’s.

Time’s analysis of Hitwise data showed that the Starbucks.com website tended to attract more females than the McDonald’s site and that their visitors tended to be in the 35-to-44-year-old range. The McDonald’s website, on the other hand, tended to attract younger visitors in the 18-to-34-year-old range.

Pew’s survey, however, showed that both men and women prefer McDonald’s to Starbucks (46% to 30% for men, and 41% to 40% for women, respectively) and that it was actually the younger crowd that preferred Starbucks (18-to-29-year-olds), rather than the 30- and 40-year-olds.

Now of course, it’s important to remember that the Time results were based on the demographics of visitors to the two companies’ websites, which is not necessarily an accurate representation of the preferences of in-store visitors. But if the Hitwise numbers are accurate, then that would seem to signal a pretty big shift in a year’s time away from Starbucks and towards McDonald’s, a shift that can be seen by comparing the companies’ stock performance over the last 12 months.

(Click to enlarge.)

A shift like that makes sense, really. Who are the ones most affected by the downturn in the economy? Families and older adults. And when money is tight, which are you going to choose: a $4 latte or dinner for your kids?

So what does all of this mean? Probably not much, unless you’re still one of the few people investing in the stock market or still employed at Starbucks. I still stand by my original argument that there are plenty of people who frequent both restaurants, so it’s not really an apples-to-apples comparison. There just happen to be a lot fewer folks queued up for coffee than there used to be.

But for the record, if I had to make the choice, it’s still Starbucks every time.

Previously:
Drive-thru demographics: Starbucks vs. McDonald’s

“Casualties” by Christian rock band Addison Road:

He sees his life just pass by
Just another number in a suit and tie
No purpose here nothing to give
Is this what it means to really live?
His feet never touch the ground
His days fly by, he can’t slow down

(CHORUS)
Casualties of the American dream
Have we lost our vision
Drifting off and living
Half asleep with a faint heartbeat
Just dying to be revived
I want to be revived

She’s screaming out, “I’ve lost control”
Caught in another undertow
She’s only barely hanging on
Been holding her breath for so long
Her feet never touch the ground
She’s not sure which way is up or down

(CHORUS)
Casualties of the American dream
Have we lost our vision
Drifting off and living
Half asleep with a faint heartbeat
Just dying to be revived

I want to be revived
I want to feel alive
And in a world so numb
Don’t let me become another
Casualty living in this dream

(CHORUS)
Casualties of the American dream
Just dying to be revived
I want to be revived

I want to be revived

Previously:
Who owns you?

Texas Governor Rick Perry campaigned vigorously against the massive $787,000,000,000 “stimulus bill” signed into law Tuesday, but now that the funds have been approved, he’s more than willing to accept the state’s share of the money.

“As I have said during the debate on (the stimulus package), should Congress pass stimulus legislation using Texas tax dollars, I would work to ensure that our citizens receive their fair share,” Perry wrote in a letter to President Barack Obama.

Legislative leaders estimate that the stimulus bill could deliver almost $17 billion to the state budget, including billions for Medicaid, education and transportation. Lawmakers are just starting to see how the money might fit into the state budget. …

“We have begun the process today of accepting the funds,” Perry spokeswoman Allison Castle said. “However, the governor only wants those funds that can be used for one-time expenditures that don’t obligate the state to ongoing costs long after the federal funding has dried up.”

Using it for one-time expenses or not, is it hypocritical for the governor to accept any of the money? After all, as he recently wrote in an op-ed piece for the Washington Times:

I am convinced that those who believe in big government have little faith in self-governance. Their philosophy says that government should do what a man can’t – or won’t – do for himself.

Perhaps I’m jaded, but I believe that the gush of taxpayer dollars issuing forth from Washington is not driven by compassion, but from an unspoken belief that Americans are not smart enough to govern their own lives, strong enough to take some risk or compassionate enough to help neighbors in need.

On the surface it certainly appears hypocritical. If you really believe that Americans are smart enough to govern their lives and strong enough to take the necessary risks to help themselves, then there should be no need for a $17 billion federal handout, right?

Of course, it’s not that simple. For Perry, who’s facing a fierce challenge from Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison for the governor’s office in 2010, it’s a no-win situation. If he takes the money, then he looks like a hypocrite and also gives Hutchison massive ammunition in what has already become a nasty primary season. If he rejects the money on principle, however, he risks coming up short on funds in critical areas such as transportation and education. Plus, he would most certainly be angering a large number of voters who stand to benefit from the money. (And if the 2006 election is any indication, Perry doesn’t have much political capital to spare.)

So what’s a conservative governor to do? I think the only option is to accept the money for one-time expenses as Perry is doing. Yeah, he might have some ’splainin’ to do to fend off the resulting criticism, but the cost of not accepting the money would be much more devastating.

Previously:
When will Kay Bailey Hutchison resign?

Does having a complex economy make a modern nation such as the United States more likely to collapse?

Yes, at least according to ultraconservative columnist and radio talk show host Jeffrey Nyquist, who argues that the fall of the Roman Empire in the fourth century could easily foretell a similar fate for the American Empire:

What led to Rome’s weakening? In describing the city of Rome in the middle of the fourth century, Ammianus Marcellinus wrote of the vanity and materialism of his contemporaries. Rome became great through virtue, he argued, and virtue had given way to vice. Decades before the barbarians broke into the empire, causing the economy to unravel, the Romans were focused on entertainment and self-gratification. “In this state of things,” wrote Marcellinus, “the few houses which once had the reputation of being centers of serious culture are now given over to the trivial pursuits of passive idleness…. Men put themselves to school to the singer instead of the philosopher, to the theatrical producer rather than the teacher of oratory. The libraries are like tombs, permanently shut; men manufacture water-organs and lutes the size of carriages and flutes and heavy properties for theatrical performances.”

To borrow a phrase from Neil Postman, the Romans were “entertaining themselves to death.” … The Roman Empire lost the ability, the willpower and the inner toughness to confront the shabby little barbarian tribes that collapsed its delicate economic mechanism.

He goes on to further echo the arguments of historian Bryan Ward-Perkins that the more specialized and complex a nation’s economy is, the more fragile it is. Such was the case with Rome, and therefore such is the case with America.

But is it?

Surely our society engages in plenty of vice, and we focus way too much on entertainment and self-gratification. No question about that. But just how vulnerable does that make us to attack from modern-day barbarians? I would say we are extremely vulnerable, but not necessarily because we watch too much television or have a complex, specialized economy.

In fact, the only reason we have so much leisure time is because our economy is complex and specialized. Through changes in technology, we have become much more efficient in producing goods and services. And with the rise of the global economy, we can use comparative advantage to benefit not only our nation, but other nations we trade with.

Does global economic trading make us weaker and more susceptible to collapse? I don’t think so. Sure, we’re much more dependent on China and India and OPEC, but they’re also dependent on us. After all, any trade involves both a buyer and a seller.

That’s not to say we aren’t invincible because clearly we’re not. There is always a risk in opening up your borders to trade and immigration. It might be lead-tainted toys from China, disease-harboring produce from South America, or Islamic terrorists from the Middle East.

But the benefits of economic interdependency far outweigh the risks, even during a global crisis like the one we’re facing now.

A lot has changed in the 1700 years since the Roman Empire collapsed. Yes, many of the underlying causes for their collapse should serve as lessons for us. But we also face a number of challenges the Romans could never have imagined. What those challenges will ultimately mean for future generations remains to be seen.

Previously:
‘Information overload’ vs. ‘cognitive surplus’
Long live capitalism

Today is the 200th birthday of Abraham Lincoln. As Americans, we can be extremely proud of Lincoln’s accomplishments in holding the country together during and after the Civil War and for formally ending slavery in America.

However, as John Piper points out, even Lincoln wasn’t perfect:

Emancipation would come and Lincoln would be celebrated as a hero in that cause. But like every hero, his feet are clay. That is what human greatness is—deeply flawed.

There is one hero, and only one, who will not let you down—Jesus Christ. All other heroes fail us, and the reason they do is to point us to Christ. There is no one more admirable, and more worthy of our praise, than Christ. At the very moment when he looked least praiseworthy, he was achieving the highest triumph of love—his death.

I thank God for Abraham Lincoln today. And among other great reasons one of them is: admiring and disillusioned I turn to Jesus.

As the scientific community prepares to celebrate Charles Darwin’s 200th birthday tomorrow, the Vatican appears ready to fully embrace his theory of evolution within the Catholic Church.

“In fact, what we mean by evolution is the world as created by God,” said Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture. The Vatican also dealt the final blow to speculation that Pope Benedict XVI might be prepared to endorse the theory of Intelligent Design, whose advocates credit a “higher power” for the complexities of life.

Organisers of a papal-backed conference next month marking the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species said that at first it had even been proposed to ban Intelligent Design from the event, as “poor theology and poor science”. Intelligent Design would be discussed at the fringes of the conference at the Pontifical Gregorian University, but merely as a “cultural phenomenon”, rather than a scientific or theological issue, organisers said. …

Conceding that the Church had been hostile to Darwin because his theory appeared to conflict with the account of creation in Genesis, Archbishop Ravasi argued yesterday that biological evolution and the Christian view of Creation were complementary.

This view by the Catholic Church isn’t really anything new. The Church has had an open mind with regards to evolution going back at least to the 1950s, and Pope John Paul II said in 1996 it was “more than a hypothesis.” And while Pope Benedict XVI hasn’t specifically endorsed evolution as the ultimate truth, he hasn’t endorsed Intelligent Design either.

I’m not Catholic, so maybe I’m not really qualified to be blogging about this. But I’m not sure how you can say on the one hand that the world was “created by God” while on the other hand, Intelligent Design (i.e. Creation) is “poor theology and poor science.”

Does the Catholic Church believe that God created the universe and mankind or doesn’t it? From Archbishop Ravasi’s statements, it appears it doesn’t.

So how is that complementary to the Bible? It isn’t. As I wrote a couple of months ago:

Christianity can be summed up in four basic truths: (1) God created the universe and everything in it, and humans were created distinctly in God’s image (Genesis 1:26-27). (2) Mankind disobeyed God, causing us to be separated from Him. Romans 6:23 says that the punishment for that disobedience is death, meaning Hell. (3) God sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to earth to pay that penalty for us by dying on the cross. Three days after His death, Jesus was resurrected and now sits at God’s right hand in Heaven. (4) By repenting of our sin and acknowledging that Jesus is Lord of our lives, we can be forgiven of our sins and reborn spiritually in order that we can live eternally in Heaven.

If you remove any of those truths from the equation, then it’s no longer consistent with the Bible. Therefore, you can’t as a Christian believe that humans evolved from another organism or species.

However, that is not to say that evolution cannot co-exist with Creation. Evolution, if you define it as plants and animals adapting over time to their environment, is not inconsistent with the Bible (at least as I see it). So I can allow for the existence of evolution up to a point. But again, if you take out that first biblical truth, then all other aspects of Christianity don’t make any sense.

It may be that I’m misunderstanding the Vatican’s position here. It could very well be that their view of evolution is similar to mine, which allows for a limited form of evolution so long as it doesn’t interfere with the concept of divine creation by God.

But if there’s any question as to the Church’s beliefs, now would be a good time to clear it up.

Previously:
The faith of George W. Bush
Should evolution be debated in public schools?