Day at the Beach

Al Sharpton and Pat Robertson, reverends both, are appearing in a new commercial this week speaking up about the need to save our planet. In suits. On a couch. At the beach.

CBS News and 60 Minutes are reporting that Al Gore's non-profit Alliance for Climate Protection has hired the ad team behind Geico's Cavemen and Gecko commercials to create a series of ads that will bring climate change to the forefront of this year's election. The tongue-in-cheek ads will feature other odd pairings, such as Toby Keith and the Dixie Chicks, and Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich, in order to start a new, national conversation on climate change and environmental stewardship as the two major parties gear up for their summer conventions.

Below is the 60 Minutes story from earlier tonight that has a short preview of the Robertson/Sharpton pairing, at about 5:08 into the clip. It's not much, but I'm sure the videos will be up on YouTube soon enough. What I've seen so far looks like good stuff. It's yet to be seen how it will affect voters come November -- there's no doubt that Obama/Clinton will be vocal about it, but McCain is no stranger to speaking out against global warming either. Will he toe the "business first" line in order to stay pally-pals with Bush/Cheney and the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal? If McCain and the GOP really want to make some noise before the convention, it might not be a bad idea to come out with a strong position either way.

A Sort-Of Framework: What It Means for Me to Blog in 2008

Why we type, at least part of the time. Mostly though, it's just for giggles.

If I'm up for it, alot is going to be said this year. And throughout all the bitching, and all the snark, and all the times I try to be funny or ironic or smarter than the world, I thought it might be nice to explain why I care about these things I type about. Why I care about elections and the elected and the function and responsibilities of the electors. Essentially, why I give a crap.

If there's one thing I want people to take away from whatever BS goes up on this blog, I guess it's this:

There is a thing called government, and it is a tool -- a means to an end. Government isn't inherently good, and government isn't inherently evil. It's a result of Evil to be sure. We wouldn't need it were we still living in the paradise of Eden. But it's a result of Good, too. We wouldn't have created it unless we saw in it some temporary relief from lawlessness and disorder. A democratic government is only as good as its people. And that's a plain fact. We get out of government what we put into it.

To wit, the government is the people. It is chosen by us, in a remarkable process of the popular vote (well, in most cases). It acts for us, legislating and executing laws on our behalf. And in the end, it is answerable only to the people. We are it and it is us. And when we grow tired of it, we tear it down and elect a new one, without a shot being fired. This is what we do every presidential election. We either confirm the status quo or reject it by brining in someone new. A bloodless revolution every four years.

My view of government has been evolving in fits and spurts for some time now. With all this rhetoric, it's easy to assume I've adopted a populist point of view. And maybe you'd be right. But mostly you'd be wrong. My view of government has less to do with the Roosevelts of the world, and more to do with the Calvins and Luthers. It's Judeo-Christian to be sure, but it's Reformed as well. My view of government is one that says the people have a right and a responsibility to stand up to the Great Powers of the world and say, "Sit down and shuttup. You are not our authorities, our representatives or our judges. We walk with you as long as you walk with us. The only power you have is what we give you. And should you cross us, we will tear you a new one. Then doodle funny little cartoons about how stupid you are. Because seriously. You are stupid."

Essentially, the purpose of government is to stand against tyranny -- in any form. 250 years ago, that meant the tyranny of Mother England. Unrepresented in Parliament, the people of the American colonies revolted. Today that might mean the tyranny of the few over the many. The tyrannies of excessive wealth and corporate greed, consolidated media and big business, corporations who tell us how to live our lives but who in no way represent us or our best interests. If the Founders had seen what unchecked business could do to their nation, they'd be aghast, Jefferson and Hamilton alike (for all their differences).

Anyone who knew me five or six years ago would have thought I was interested in theology mostly, and maybe a few other things from time to time. And theology still has a strong hold over me. But my reasons for asking the "Big Questions" have shifted somewhat. In the day, I asked the questions out of curiosity. Not enough people were asking them, so I thought, " Why not me?"

Now I ask the questions out of a desire for proper praxis. I want to know how to live rightly in 21st century America. Also, I want to know if that's even a possibility. And living rightly, in a political sense, brings up different questions than "Does God know the future?" or "Is there a magic way to read the Bible so that we all agree on every issue?" (And don't try to kid yourself; if you live and work in America, you're already a politically active person. The act of owning property or goods or simply buying milk and where you buy it are all political acts.)

And I want to know what it means -- both politically and theologically -- what it means to own land, and what it means to purchase items others have made, and what it means to buy milk at Kroger rather than IGA, or 2% rather than skim, or organic rather than conventional. And if you don't think your theology informs all those decisions, then it's time to rethink your theology.

Of course, exploring these issues brings up loads of hypocrisy. But that's only human. We believe in things so deeply at times, that it's hard to bring our praxis (our actions) up to speed with our doxis (our beliefs) in the midst of a fallen world. But just because it's a hard thing, doesn't mean it's a futile thing. We try because we must. We try because we're people, because we don't get things right the first time or the second time or the third time. Because we know that even though we may never get things right, we learn something new and something powerful and something useful every time we fail. And we become better people for it.

And yes. The process of reforming our government seems like an impossible task sometimes; but that doesn't give us the right to sit back and let someone else take care of it. This little website, in its own small, insignificant way, is my own small, insignificant voice. It is one of many small, insignificant political acts, that I hope add up to something not so small or insignificant. It's my way of saying, "I have a voice, weak though it may be. And it counts for something."

Over the next 10 months, remember that. And remember this, too: Your government functions on your behalf for as long as you would have it. And then, every four years, a revolution happens. Picking a new president isn't a political game, it is the responsibility of the polis, who in our country consent to be governed by others -- others who owe no loyalty to any other nation or institution or corporation, but do what they do for the express purpose of what's right for all of America. In a perfect world, we wouldn't need government....

But you know the rest.

Happy Times Are Here Again!

A Health Plan for Wal-Mart: Less Stinginess (NY Times)

So Wal-Mart's finally starting to play the health care game. According to the Times, the Big Blue Box is "offering better coverage to a greater number of workers." In light of Wal-Mart's slowed growth in North America, it makes sense to give in from time to time, and spend that political capital on appealing to consumers who might not usually shop at their stores.

How Wal-Mart sold the new policy to the Old Guard within its own Home Office was through logic and sound economic sense -- taking care of your workers increases productivity and shrinks turnover:

If workers “are healthy, they will do a better job at work, they’ll be more productive, they’ll be happier, nicer to our customers,” Ms. Dillman said, all of which results in less absenteeism and turnover, a longstanding problem in retailing.

It might seem like a pretty big duh to most reasonable people, but you have to remember that Wal-Mart is steeped in a certain type of southern, small-town, social culture, where two-parent families are still the norm, and moms take part-time jobs at Wal-Mart while dads bring home the bacon (and the family's health insurance) through other full-time positions. It takes a lot of persistence to change the culture of Wal-Mart. And finally, that persistence seems to be paying off.

Wal-Mart’s insurance still pales in comparison to that offered by Costco, considered the gold standard in retailing because an employee pays just a few hundred dollars a year for generous individual coverage. But Wal-Mart is catching up to retailers like Home Depot and has in some ways surpassed Target, which makes part-timers wait two years to qualify for coverage.

And that's saying something. Target, with its upscale products and trendy store fronts, always seemed to dodge the bullet that other box stores like Wal-Mart and K-Mart couldn't. Expect Target to follow suite, otherwise they might see a bit more of the wrath that unions and worker's rights groups have been targeting towards Wal-Mart.

My favorite line from the article:

The New York Times disclosed a company memorandum proposing ways to reduce health care spending by....discouraging unhealthy people from working at Wal-Mart. One suggestion would have required cashiers to gather carts as exercise.

Yes! Now I realize why I had to fill in for the stock boys so often as a cashier! They were looking out for my health!

One reason for expanding health coverage to its workers that's only briefly alluded to in the article is that Wal-Mart might be interested in selling health care to its customers, too; and will likely penny pinch, scrimp and save in doing so. Remember this, if any one organization could single-handedly bring down the cost of health care for American citizens, it's Wal-Mart.

“If you really turned Wal-Mart loose and had Wal-Mart against the health care providers,” Mr. Nichols, the health economist, said, “it would be a fair fight.”

Watch out, Hillary and Obama. There's a new sheriff in town.

Hulu Or Bust!

What is Hulu?

I'm not quite sure yet, but this much I do know: I've been invited to be a beta tester! Maybe they're giving these out like free candy -- I don't know. But it sure does feel special to be testing products for absolutely free so that I can save Corporate American some of their hard-earned money!

For those of you who think the interwebs are still just for email and geocities, Hulu is a new video venture between NBC/Universal and FOX News Corp. There's been quite a bit of buzz over the last couple of months about just what Hulu would be. A corporate YouTube for user-generated content? Or perhaps a new video downloading site to rival iTunes or Unbox?

Well the answer is here....Sort of. I'll let you know as soon as I know. All I can right now is, there's not a whole lot of content yet. And I'm tired. Give me 24 hours, then we'll talk. Until then, I remain everybody's favorite corporate lackey. Good day, sir!

Time To Get Paid

Picketing as Infotainment (In the Days of Web 2.0)

As of 12 hours ago (give or take) the Writer's Guild of America has been on strike. But what the hell does that mean? TV Squad gives a nice overview of how it might affect your television viewing habits. First, say goodbye to new episodes of Late Night television this week. Scripted shows, on the other hand, have enough scripts stockpiled to last until January. However, if the last WGA strike is any indication (it lasted 22 weeks), that might not be enough of a head start for your favorite shows.

The film industry is safe for the time being, with most of the summer blockbusters in either production or post. However, as Cinematical points out, even with the stockpile of scripts in Hollywood, the writers won't be available for rewrites. For X-Men XVII, or whatever the hell is coming out this summer, that's not such a big deal. But it could hurt the Oscar candidates considerably. Should the strike last for a while, who knows what we'll see in theaters come next fall/winter.

The big difference between this strike and the last one in 1988 is, of course, the internet. Even the impetus of this strike, writing residuals for DVD sales and internet downloads, are very Brave New World. And unlike in '88, there is a real and immediate way for fans to keep in constant contact and interaction with fellow fans and even writers. So far, Blog City looks to be overwhelmingly in the corner of writers. 20 years ago, there wasn't this connection between creative types and viewers. But in a Web 2.0 era full of Joss Whedons and Kevin Smiths, consumers of television and film are more apt to side with content creators (especially those with a visible web presense) rather than content distributors (like NBC or Universal).

Just as the web has revolutionized how we consume our content, it's also transforming (albeit, quite slowly) the political process behind how these shows are made. It's one thing for the Writer's Guild to stand up to the "big, bad studios" for their creative rights. But it's another thing entirely for studios to take on both writers and viewers, creators and consumers. Remember, for many viewers, these Studio Suits are the same guys who canceled Freaks and Geeks, Firefly and Jericho. There's no lost love there. If the studios can't bargain quietly (and in good faith), expect things to get real ugly, real soon.

Dr. Evil Now Corporate CEO of Viacom, Daily Show Fights Back

And now for some funniness. I caught a web clip of comedian Demetri Martin on the Daily Show the other day, in which he attempts to explain the Viacom/Google row over the proliferation of Viacom's media content on Google-owned YouTube. In short, YouTube has a policy of removing copy-written material when asked. However, for Viacom, that's not enough. They want Google to head off Viacom's material before it's even posted. And now Viacom is suing Google for a billion dollars for failure to do that. That's right, one billion dollars.

Of course, this will probably never make it to court. Viacom knows that. But by upping the ante so quickly, they force Google into a defensive position should an out-of-court legal settlement take place. No doubt YouTube profits from the web traffic brought to its site due to Viacom-owned shows on Comedy Central, MTV and Nickelodeon. But Viacom profits, too, as it brings increased consumer awareness for its brands and products. However, Viacom wants a slice of the advertising pie that Google brings in via YouTube. Ergo, sue their pants off.

Now back to the funny. This last week on the Daily Show, Demetri Martin attempted to explain the Viacom/Google suit for Viacom's Daily Show customers. The video is below and it's pretty funny. At one point, Martin even addresses those viewers who are watching him on YouTube. What's even funnier, though, is that I first caught this video via TV Squad courtesy of YouTube. A day later, the video has been removed. The vid below is courtesy of Comedy Central, which is the way Viacom wants it.

Well, in addition to that one billion dollars.

Starbucks Hates Africans!

Okay, that's not really true. I just like typing scandalous headlines. But it is true that Starbucks make millions, perhaps billions, exploiting coffee growers across our fair blue-green planet, and must be stopped at all costs, up to, and including, dumping coffee from the cup into the trash because even when you ask for "room for cream" they still give you way too much coffee and not enough room for cream. Oh yeah, I'm a damn-hell-ass rebel.

But seriously, if we can, Starbucks is making truckloads of money off of Ethiopian beans, using the nation of Ethiopia as a selling point, and Ethiopia, naturally, wants a piece of the action. Starbucks would probably acquiesce, were Ethiopia not asking for such a huge chunk of said action. Country vs. Company! Oh yeah!

To be fair, Starbucks is a huge buyer of Fair Trade coffee, and that's dandy. But Fair Trade growers are still at the mercy of the buyer. They don't demand a price. They get the "fair" value only if they can find someone nice enough to buy it. Were Ethiopian farmers (or more accurately, the nation) allowed to trademark coffee exports that specifically come from their nation, they could set the price for buyers to use their trademarked beans.

Of course, Starbucks' lawyers don't see it that way. And that's what this'll come down to. The lawyers of the Starbucktopia vs. Ethiopia, which placed 170th out of 177 countries in a recent UN ranking of human development. That doesn't necessarily mean Ethiopians can't afford a good lawyer for themselves, it just means that their farmers need a leg up in the market. Fair Trade? That's nice. But owning the name of the coffee you sweat and toil over? That's fair.

p.s. FYI, those are coffee cherries above, what the coffee bean looks like before being dried and roasted. You learn something new every day! Go tell your friends! Start a revolution!