RSS
 

Archive for the ‘Culture’ Category

Breast Cancer: A quick clarification

17 Oct

It has come to my attention that some readers thought my previous posts indicated that I do not care about it, or that I do not care about those who are affected by breast cancer.

That is not the case. I am in favor of cancer awareness and a cure for breast cancer. I am in favor of fundraising to provide funding for those who need help covering medical expenses and for research costs for a cure.

My question has been: As a disease that is the cause of death of only 2% of Americans, why do we seem to care about it more than the things that kill 98%?

I recognize that talking about humans by numbers and percents may sound the opposite of compassionate for those that are affected by any death, whether the cause is a 1% killer or a 40% killer. That hasn’t been my intention at all. My intention has been the reverse, to encourage people to care about the 98% of human deaths and those affected by them as we do about the 2%.

 
1 Comment

Posted in Culture

 

Why Breast Cancer (part 2)

12 Oct

Last night I asked the question:

Why does one disease that causes 2% of deaths every year get more attention than all other causes of death?

Breast cancer ribbons are on license plates, political buildings, food products, and apparently even football player uniforms. But it causes 2% of deaths. The leading cause of death kills 20 times as many people. That leading cause of death – that which kills more humans in America is abortion.

All things being equal, we should put our most effort into fighting the leading cause of death (abortion) – 20 times the effort we put into breast cancer awareness. For every breast cancer ribbon, there ought to be 15  heart disease ribbons. For every “I love boobies” bumper stickers, there should be two “I love people who don’t remember me” bumper stickers to promote Alzheimer’s disease which kills nearly twice as many people every year.

But we don’t – we don’t walk twenty miles against abortion for every one mile we walk against breast cancer.

So something is not equal. What are the factors?

Last night I speculated that one factor was the sexualization of culture. It’s about breasts, so we care. I also wrote that we wrongly tend to get our self-image and confidence as a man or woman based on our physical appearances, and for a disease to attack one very clear symbol of being a woman is for the disease to attack our frail self-view.

But I missed what may be the biggest factor.

This morning a friend read my blog post on Facebook and wrote

…Cancer also moves people because it is scary – there may be some ways to reduce your risk, but it is not nearly as preventable as say heart disease which is the #1 killer. We know that diet, exercise, maintenance of an appropriate BMI, etc..will drastically reduce risk of heart disease and stroke but there is no such “simple” formula for breast cancer prevention. It affects women of all ages, races, socioeconomic status and is very likely to significantly affect one of your loved ones (and mine)…

By the numbers, we all have more loved ones affected by heart disease and other killers than breast cancer, but about what makes it different from other diseases, I think she was right. Cancer is different than many diseases because they can be prevented. It’s a sneaky indiscriminate killer. It’s not a gang member that shoots you because you’re in the wrong part of town late at night. Like the flu and Alzheimer’s disease, it’s the killer that breaks into your home at night when you’re sleeping. These non-preventable diseases are scarier (though the argument could be made that it’s the preventable ones that need more awareness so people can prevent them).

Breast cancer can affect any adult woman, regardless of many factors, including health. It’s not a “fatty disease,” which could have been prevented or limited if someone kept themselves more attractive. It’s not a disease that only affects old people.

So why do we care more about deaths caused by breast cancer than anything else, including other non-preventable diseases like Alzheimer’s and the flu? From this perspective, because we value the lives of the people affected more than we value the lives of those killed by other causes. We value the lives of pretty young women more than the lives of fat old men.

The message we communicate by the emphasis on breast cancer is thus:

  • Your life is more valuable if you are a woman, and less valuable if you are a man.
  • Your life is more valuable if you are young, and less valuable if you are old.
  • Your life is more valuable if you are skinny, and less valuable if you are overweight.
  • Your life is more valuable if you are a mother, and less valuable if you are a father.
  • Your life is more valuable if you are an adult, and less valuable if you are aren’t born yet.

Perhaps this is incorrect – leave a comment and let me know so we can figure out this riddle: why does the 2% killer get more attention than everything else.

Again – I’m not downplaying breast cancer, or breast cancer awareness. I’m just trying to figure out the disproportionate attention which seems to communicate that the 2% of people who die of breast cancer are more significant than the other 98% of humans who die every year.

 
8 Comments

Posted in Culture, Reason

 

Our obsession with breasts: breast cancer month

11 Oct

Breast cancer is not the number one killer in America. It is not the number one killer of women.

All cancers, as a category, are the #3 killer, below heart disease, which is #2. But breast cancer kills less people than stroke (cardiovascular disease), chronic lower respiratory diseases, accidents (unintentional injuries), Alzheimer’s disease, diabetes, nephritis-nephrotic syndrome-and-nephrosis, and even the flu, according to the CDC.

Despite all of these other causes of death killing more of our loved ones than breast cancer, it’s the disease that gets the most attention. The capital building here in Denver has a big pink ribbon on it, as do cars on the street, and food packaging in every grocery store.

I’m not questioning people’s desire to have a cure for diseases. I’m questioning why one disease trumps so many others which together are 50 times as fatal.

It seems that this is our proud-as-a-peacock display of the objectification of women. We care more about breast cancer, even though it’s only the cause of 2% of deaths in America, because it’s about breasts. Promotional material has gotten more honest, at least, like the “boobies” bumper sticker I took a photo of recently. [Post continues below.]

"Boobies" bumper sticker

It’s understandable that we use our bodies as part of our self worth, and that’s another reason it’s significant. We value our bodies to the level of idolatry, and judge our self-worth as men and women by things that set us apart from each other, particularly in sexual ways. This self-view is something Christians are supposed to fight against as it is contrary to what the Bible teaches. Jesus taught that one’s life is more important than any individual body part (Matthew 5:29-30,6:25), and Paul taught that the marks of true femininity was not in appearance, but in character and good deeds (1 Timothy 2:8-10). (The same is true of men, who are supposed to stand out spiritually and in prayer, lifting holy hands in praying for their authorities without anger or disputing.)

Obviously men like breasts for primal, cultural, and primarily sexual reasons as well. Perhaps that really is what it all comes down to for many people – we support breast cancer research more than anything else because heart disease and Alzheimer’s disease doesn’t make us think of sex.

I hope we have a cure for breast cancer soon. I also hope we have a cure for Alzheimer’s disease, heart disease, diabetes, and other killers. I am troubled that a disease that ranks so low on the list has taken over because the over-sexualization  of our culture.

Please leave comments if there’s reasons I’m unaware of that this 2% killer trumps all others. I’d be interested to learn the answer to this riddle.

Oh – and what is the number one killer in America? Abortion is the number one killer in America. For every 1 woman that dies from breast cancer, 20 babies are aborted – and this only includes legal abortions that are are reported. Twenty.

 
10 Comments

Posted in Culture, Reason

 

No Ordinary Family

29 Sep

No Ordinary Family on AB

I just watched the premier of ABC’s No Ordinary Family on Hulu. I’ll be following this show hoping that subsequent episodes are as good as the premier. The show is very good for a few reasons.

1.This family has a good husband/father.

Michael Chiklis plays the father in No Ordinary Family

Michael Chiklis plays Jim Powell, father, in No Ordinary Family

Most television shows feature extremely lousy fathers.  Usually the father is lazy at work, unfaithful or barely faithful to his wife, and/or so stupid that the children are smarter than he. This is one symptom of a larger cultural assault on fatherhood and real masculinity that will require it’s own article to discuss. The No Ordinary Family father,  played by Michael Chiklis, who you’ll remember as Ben Grimm/The Thing (The rock guy) from The Fantastic Four movies, loves his wife and their two teenage kids. While he feels helpless to do so, he keeps trying to do what he can to strengthen relationships with his kids, and lead the way back to healthy and constructive relationships as the man of the house.

He tries to play catch with his kids for fun, and go on dates with his wife, though no other family members respond well. However, his teenage daughter (played by Kay Panabaker who has been in several made for TV movies and several tv series in limited roles) mentions mid-way through this first episode when talking to her mother that she usually talks to her dad about difficult situations. His son (played by Jimmy Bennet who played the young James T. Kirk in the most recent Star Trek movie) connects better with his father as well as the show makes clear the mother doesn’t spend any time with him either.

This father cares about his wife and his kids, and wants what’s best for them, which includes a strong relationship with their father.

2. It’s about a family trying to re-connect.

Julie Benz plays Stephanie Powell in No Ordinary Family

Julie Benz plays the mother, Stephanie Powell, in No Ordinary Family

The plot begins when the mother (played by Julie Benz from Buffy, Angel, Dexter and what looks like a bunch of horror movies) has to head to Brazil on a business research trip. Michale Chiklis’s character insists on changing the trip into a family vacation as a time to re-connect with each other. The one time on the trip he gets them all in one place is on a small plane which subsequently crashes and … but enough about tiptoeing around spoilers -as the previews show, they discover they have super powers. These new unknown and unexplored abilities bring the family together, forcing them to place family higher than work, Internet, and texting. They realize they need to be able to depend on each other more than anyone else, and by the end of the pilot, everyone wants what the dad has wanted – to re-connect as a family, and foster healthy relationships.

3. It’s true to life.

Jimmy Bennett plays the son, JJ Powell, in No Ordinary Family

Jimmy Bennett plays the son, JJ Powell, in No Ordinary Family

Given, parasites are more common to bring back from South America than super powers. In many ways, this episode was about normal life. The teens are talking twitter and texting.

The son struggles with schoolwork and the daughter struggles with insecurity. The mother is having to juggle work and family priorities and the father questions his confidence at his job. These are life’s real struggles.

The camera pauses on details like the mother noticing kids in another car making a mess of their snacks. A man stands on the shoulder looking under the hood of his car. Normally these details stand out because the writers had to put them in as clues to something later in the story. Here it seems to be because this is what life as a parent is like. These are the things that stand out in a normal super-sonic run – or drive – down the highway for all of us.

4. The family’s powers correspond to their struggles.

Kay Panabaker plays the daughter, Daphne Powell, in No Ordinary Family

Kay Panabaker plays the daughter, Daphne Powell, in No Ordinary Family

The father feels helpless in bringing his family together, he feels weak as a father and as an employee at the police station as a sketch artist. He is gifted with strength. He can catch bullets, hit hard, jump high, and fall off a tall building without getting hurt.

The mother feels like she can never catch up to everything she has to do as a mother and a career woman. She is gifted with speed, so she bypasses traffic and has time to spend with her kids and husband that have taken a lower priority than her job.

The daughter is self-conscious about what other people think about her, so she is gifted with the ability to read thoughts. One quick benefit is that she breaks up with her boyfriend when she finds out he isn’t following through on his repeated commitment to wait to have sex as she’s committed.

The son discovers his last, but his weakness is feeling dumb at school. Guess what he is gifted with?

It’s very heart-touching to see these years-long or life-long struggles start to be repaired though these new giftings.

Summary

The show is fairly family friendly. The theme is about how to keep the family together and how to make it healthier, thought there is some bad language from both teenagers and the parents. There’s some violence as the father works at the police station and attempts to be a hero, so there’s some fighting and guns firing at him and others.

I liked the first episode and look forward to more. It’s positive. It’s about family. It’s true to life. It’s got a good father. I grow weary of shows about murder, even if there are some family relationships. I’m hoping that even if this show, with it’s potentially crime-fighting-family, ends up with lots of crimes, that it remains a show about family values.

Then again, this is on ABC, known as the most extreme network in pushing liberal values.

Here’s the preview:

YouTube Preview Image
 
2 Comments

Posted in Culture, Television

 

Dr. Roger Starner Jones Muses On Crisis Culture : Fact.

17 Sep

emergency room doctor roger starner jonesWhen my cousin, a medical professional, shared this on Facebook, I assumed it was just an email forward telling a fictional story. It’s not.

Dr. Roger Starner Jones is an ER Doctor who works at UMMC and is currently selling this condo, featuring a central vacuum. Real guy. What he wrote below was published August 29th, 2009 and is currently making rounds on Facebook in a slightly modified version addressed to the President.

If he is correct, then the health care overhaul just made worse the problem that has caused the mess we’re currently in with health care. What do you think?

Dear Sirs:

During my last night’s shift in the ER, I had the pleasure of evaluating a patient with a shiny new gold tooth, multiple elaborate tattoos, a very expensive brand of tennis shoes and a new cellular telephone equipped with her favorite R&B; tune for a ring tone.

Glancing over the chart, one could not help noticing her payer status: Medicaid.

She smokes more than one costly pack of cigarettes every day and, somehow, still has money to buy beer. And our President expects me to pay for this woman’s health care?

Our nation’s health care crisis is not a shortage of quality hospitals, doctors or nurses. It is a crisis of culture – a culture in which it is perfectly acceptable to spend money on vices while refusing to take care of one’s self or, heaven forbid, purchase health insurance.

A culture that thinks I can do whatever I want to because someone else will always take care of me.

Life is really not that hard. Most of us reap what we sow.

Starner Jones, MD
Jackson, MS

As a side note, I’m not the only one trying to find the source of this letter. The news paper that published this doesn’t have it archived on their website, but people are looking. 5 of the top 10 searches today are trying to find this story:

Clarion Ledger searches

 
1 Comment

Posted in Culture, Politics

 

Religious Extremists, Part 1

08 Sep
YouTube Preview Image

Since Rosie O’Donnell declared that Christian extremists were as dangerous as Muslim extremists, it seems to have become an official talking-point of American politics. I’ve heard media talking heads say that Christianity and Islam are the same: not all Muslims are terrorists, not all Christians proselytize.

Naturally, telling someone there’s a free gift of eternal salvation available to all is strikingly similar to blowing up yourself along with a bus load of people, or two trade towers. Why didn’t we see that before? In perspective, we can all now see that every Billy Graham event was as damaging to America as 9/11. Yet the American military doesn’t seem to be able to track down one old man in the mountains of North Carolina. I smell conspiracy. How did we not realize this when Graham called his events the most politically incorrect word: “Crusades!” Oh, the horror of extreme Christians!

George W. Bush promoted the idea that Islam is a religion of peace. What about that sneaky worldwide trend of violent extremists rising up within Islam? We’re told that every religion has extremists, but it is no reflection on the religion or the people who follow it. But especially Christians.

Today a Christian extremist is in the news again.

A small US church says it will defy international condemnation and go ahead with plans to burn copies of the Koran on the 9/11 anniversary.

The top US commander in Afghanistan warned troops’ lives would be in danger if the Dove World Outreach Center in Florida went through with the plan.

Muslim countries, the US government and Nato have also hit out at the plan.

But organiser, Pastor Terry Jones said: “We must send a clear message to the radical element of Islam.”

The US government, NATO, even General Petraeus have spoken against this man. Petraeus warned that the action could cause violence “not just in Kabul, but everywhere in the world.”

The Huffington Post calls this “our own home-grown variety of dangerous extremism.”

The State Department calls him “un-American.”

I’m not arguing that this guy is correct – or that he’s incorrect – in what he’s doing. But I think it’s important that we get down to what is happening here. Like the conversations at Jim Taggart’s wedding reception, no one is willing to name what is going on here: Terrorism.

Muslims burn an effigy of Pastor Terry Jones who may burn a copy of the Koran

Crowds of Muslims in Afghanistan are chanting “Death to America,” and burned an effigy of the pastor – who as of yet, hasn’t done anything. The Obama administration has called on Americans to join these protests against this American pastor.

And yet, less than a year ago, there was a Bible burning that did not receive international or even presidential condemnation. What’s the difference? What’s the thought pattern in this case?

Everyone’s behavior should be modified out of fear of violence from a certain group of people.

Yet – isn’t that the very definition of terrorism? (Yes, it is: “the state of fear and submission produced by the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce.”)

Will this empower the enemies of America in Afghanistan? Perhaps. It already has, and nothing has happened.

Will this endanger American civilians in Muslim countries around the world? Possibly.

Is it foolish to tempt a bully that is threatening violence against you? Perhaps. And that’s why the bully stays the bully. That’s why the mob wins. That’s why terrorism works.

The government of the United States is one that will pay someone $15,000.00 to take and popularize photos of a crucifix in urine, that will ignore Bible burnings, yet speaks out against anyone who does not submit to at least some of the commands of Islam.

Regardless of Rosie’s talking point, anyone who argues that this guy is a dangerous Christian extremist is saying that only because of what Muslim extremists will do. Anyone who argues that he should stop because of potential violent Muslim reactions is saying there is a difference between Christian and Muslim extremists.

 
7 Comments

Posted in Culture, Media, Politics, Spirituality

 

Information Addiction

26 Aug

I am addicted to my Blackberry.

Or so my extended family told me when they were listing what they thought everyone present was addicted to. I’m not addicted to my phone per se, nor technology (some technology like microwave ovens I reject outrightly). I’m addicted to the technology-provided connectivity to unnecessary information.

For example, the first thing I did this morning was check The Drudge Report on my phone. I read some articles about the upcoming Glenn Beck/Sarah Palin non-political rally in Washington DC, an article about Democrats increasingly thing they’ll lose the House of Representatives in November, and the story of a comedian trying to kick his technology habit by living in his bathroom for 5 days. ( Seriously? 5 days is all it’s going to take? And you’re living in your bathroom? Since you evidently don’t rely on technology, why not just box it up and put it in your garage?)

None of that information was necessary at the beginning of my day. So this is how tech-connectedness has infiltrated my life. This is my poison. What’s yours?

During what hours of the day do you check Facebook? the news? blogs? your favorite website? During what hours do you text message?

Photo of woman using laptop in bed

Increasingly the answer is: all hours. This is a problem.

Instead of technology being a tool to better our lives and relationships with each other, it’s taking over our lives and making our relationships shallower.

Unfortunately, I do depend on technology. I’m a software engineer – work that can’t be done with a pen and paper. I need to receive email and instant messages on my phone for work. I can’t go cold-turkey without losing my job.  However, I’m increasingly becoming convinced that I should compartmentalize my day so that I’m a Luddite most hours of every day and a tech-savvy software engineer during business hours. I like the idea of the gadget basket, though I think I’ll just start putting my phone away, setting only business emails to notify me and closing our TV cabinet. The technology basket article linked to above suggests a few hours every day when you don’t use your phones or other technology. I’m not sure that’s right.

Instead of being self-defined as gadget-addicts that disconnect for 2 hours  every day, perhaps we should become unplugged people who use technology as a tool, but only during limited windows of time during the day. When we do connect to technology, we should be purposeful about why we’re doing so – not to waste time, but to connect with other human beings in meaningful ways.

If we don’t, we’ll eventually have perception limited to a screen – on your phone, tv, or computer monitor. Like horses with blinders, we’ll miss the world and the people around us, having them substituted for a virtual world and hollowed out shells of people that can only be communicated in 140 character status updates.

 
4 Comments

Posted in Culture, Technology

 

WSJ: The Perils of ‘Wannabe Cool’ Christianity

16 Aug

There’s an opinion piece published in the Wall Street Journal today called “The Perils of ‘Wannabe Cool’ Christianity“. It reminds me a little of what I wrote in “Treat Us Like We’re Stupid.”

Here’s an excerpt:

If we are interested in Christianity in any sort of serious way, it is not because it’s easy or trendy or popular. It’s because Jesus himself is appealing, and what he says rings true. It’s because the world we inhabit is utterly phony, ephemeral, narcissistic, image-obsessed and sex-drenched—and we want an alternative. It’s not because we want more of the same.

 
No Comments

Posted in Culture, Spirituality

 

Enviro-Narcissism

08 Aug

Suddenly we’re all Captain Planet? Because we allow the hotel to save money by not hiring as many employees to wash our linens?

We certainly do foster a culture of narcissism.

Posted from my BlackBerry.

 
6 Comments

Posted in Culture, Politics

 

Ayn Rand Part 1: Ayn Rand, John Piper and Christian Objectivist Love

23 Jul

This is Part 1 of a 1956 Ayn Rand interview with Mike Wallace. This was, according to the Youtube video description, her first television interview.

I watched it for the first time today, and would be interested in your thoughts.

Below are some excerpts from the end of this video and related thoughts.

YouTube Preview Image

Wallace: What’s wrong with loving your fellow man? Christ, every important moral leader in human history has taught us that we should love one another. Why then is this kind of love in your mind immoral?

Rand: It is immoral if it is a love placed above one’s self. It is more than immoral, it’s impossible.  Because when you are asked to love people indiscriminately, that is to love people without any standard, to love them regardless of the fact of whether they have any value or virtue, you are asked to love nobody.

Wallace: … isn’t the essence of love that it’s above self-interest?

Rand: Well, let me make it complete for you. What would it mean to have love above self-interest? It would mean, for instance, for a husband to tell his wife if he were moral, according to conventional morality that “I am marrying you just for your own sake. I have no personal interest in it, but I am so unselfish that I’m marrying you only for your own good.” Would a woman like that? … In love, the currency is virtue. You love people not ofr what you do for them or what they do for you. We love them for their values, their virtues which they have achieved in their own character. You don’t love causes. you don’t love everybody indiscriminately. You love only those who deserve it…

Wallace: … There are very few of us then, in this world, by your standards, who are worthy of love.

Rand: Unfortunately, yes. Very few. But it is open for everybody to make themselves worthy of it, and that is all that my morality offers them: A way to make themselves worthy of love, although that is not the primary motive.

But Rand’s illustration of a husband and wife does make sense. At minimum, many types – perhaps the strongest types of love are not devoid of self-interest. You’d be dead inside if you got nothing out of your love for a spouse, or a child. Per Rand, love isn’t love if you get nothing out of it.

This objectivist view of love stands in total opposition to the current political moves that declare love means each of us should make sacrifices of ourselves for “the common good,” even when we get nothing out of it. We are to be completely devoid of self-interest.

Is this love? Can love ever be devoid of self-interest?

My initial reaction is opposed to the objectivist idea – what about the good Samaritan? What about loving your neighbor as you love yourself? If people have to make themselves worthy of love, how can we love children? What about a child born with Down’s Syndrome? What about an elderly person with Alzheimer disease? This has always left me wondering if any form of objectivism can be merged with a Christian worldview*. Perhaps the answer is in the order of Jesus’ commands: Love God, and love your neighbor. Perhaps loving our neighbors is not the purpose in itself, but we love them because we love God. Loving strangers is, then, be part of loving  God.

But what about loving God? Is our love for God devoid of self-interest, or do you get something out of our love for God as we do from loving your spouse?

Question 1 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism:

Q. 1. What is the chief end of man?
A. Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.

This basic statement of the purpose of humankind declares we are purposed to get something from God – our own enjoyment.

John Piper builds off this in what he calls “Christian hedonism,” in his book Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist, and through his ministry.

Piper seems to agree with Ayn Rand! About Love for God, Piper writes:

Hebrews 11:6 teaches, “Without faith it is impossible to please [God]. For whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.” You cannot please God if you do not come to him looking for reward. Therefore, faith that pleases God is the hedonistic pursuit of God.

Ok, what about loving our enemies? While we are to expect nothing earthly in return, Piper writes that “we are given strength to suffer loss by the promise of a future reward.”

Throughout the Bible we are in fact commanded to store up for ourselves treasures in heaven. To seek God who will give us the desires of our heart – who rewards those who seek him.

Ayn Rand’s view actually aligns with the biblical idea of following God, loving our neighbors and even loving our enemies. The politics of socialism do not.

* Ayn Rand does state in this interview that she is opposed to the Judeo-Christian traditions and opposed to churches, but that doesn’t mean that everything she thinks is wrong or that everything she thinks is incompatible with Christianity. While I haven’t studied Rand at lengths, she believes that reality is objective, and our moral guide is to use reason. If objective reality is Christianity – if biblical Christianity has the most reliable truth-claims and is the most reasonable view of reality, then Christianity and objectivism could work together.

 
4 Comments

Posted in Culture, Politics, Reason, Spirituality

 
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »