Yesterday I interviewed Gene Edward Veith, Culture Editor at World magazine and author of God at Work: Your Christian Vocation in All of Life and Loving God With All Your Mind: Thinking as a Christian in the Postmodern World, for an upcoming New Man magazine article about how to make entertainment choices. Veith dropped a zinger of a caveat about our entertainment-saturated society:

Maybe even a bigger problem is the whole mentality that we need to be entertained all the time. That might be more harmful spiritually than any moral thing. A lot of people today in our culture want to be entertained all the time.

We go to church and we want to be entertained. If we’re not entertained we think there’s something wrong with our church, forgetting that the purpose of church is to hear the word of God and be built up. People want to be entertained at work. If we’re not enjoying ourselves at work we think there’s something wrong with our job. There’s a big problem at school because kids growing up in our entertainment culture, if they’re not entertained they won’t pay attention, they won’t work at it. So teachers think they have to be Big Bird and make everything so fun. There’s a lot of learning, challenging things like math education — it’s just plummeted; there’s a point where it’s hard, if you’re going to learn it, you have to work at it.

… There are other values in life that we need to hold up like work, duty, the ability to tough things out, to just do them. That’s what courage is, to persevere with something even in the face of something being unpleasant.

The whole entertaining mentality really creates a lot of weakness in our culture, and in our churches, and in a lot of us. We need to face up to that. It can breed boredom. People say they’re bored all the time. It’s because they come to the point that they have to be hyper-stimulated. It makes us insensitive. It makes us ineffective and discontented with things we shouldn’t be discontented.

The huge problem in the church is divorce. I think some men get it in their minds that they’re bored with their wives. Their marriage isn’t fun any more; it’s really a very childish, almost infantile way of looking at things. They need to grow up. Not just sit back and be passively entertained, but learn to take satisfaction in work and in overcoming problems, and in being active, not just passively thinking everything should be pleasurable. That’s a paralyzing condition when you get in that mind set.

Continue reading Entertain Us →

Gargantuan discount retailer Wal-Mart opened its first urban store in the Twin Cities today on University Ave. in the Midway area, just minutes from my house (local coverage: Pioneer Press; Star Trib). The store went in where a K-Mart closed last year.

The reaction has been mixed, with some saying the retailer’s presence will help bolster retail in general in the Midway and provide needed jobs, while others claim Wal-Mart will drive small retailers out of business and provide dead-end, low paying jobs. UFCW representatives were outside picketing Wal-Mart today, adding to the frenzy of bargain shoppers.

While the Midway certainly doesn’t need more empty stores and abandonded buildings, and the 325 jobs will be a big boost (5,000 people applied for those jobs), I’m not so sure how I feel about the long-term effect of 325 Midway citizens having low-paying jobs. No matter your opinion of unions, they do tend to pay significantly better.

Yesterday I received a flyer in the mail announcing the store’s grand opening, featuring pictures of impecably clean aisles. I’ll have to see that for myself. Frankly, it all reminds me of Barbara Ehrenreich’s Nickel and Dimed.

UPDATE: (Thursday, May 21, 2004)
The UFCW held a rally outside Wal-Mart last night, drawing as many as 300 protestors. Local coverage was weak (Star Trib), though a union backed outlet did cover the rally and provide pictures. The UFCW president answers questions in the Detroit Free Press about Wal-Mart and the current state of unions.

I’m especially curious to see if any Twin Cities bloggers (like me) are covering or talking about this. A quick Google search didn’t turn up much, other than a text-heavy, anti-Wal-Mart boycott site with tons of links. I’d love to see some photoblogs covering the event.

A study released earlier this year by California Representative George Miller (“Everyday Low Wages: The Hidden Price We All Pay for Wal-Mart” PDF) claims the average Wal-Mart store costs taxpayers $420,750 per year in public assistance thanks to the store’s low wages and benefits. Of course I haven’t read the entire 25-page report — that stat comes from the press release and was repeated in the Star Trib article mentioned above (of course the Star Trib averaged that amount across the average store’s 200 employees for a cost $2,100/year). I haven’t seen any context in the report to compare these findings to other employers, but it sounds pretty brutal compared to the UFCW’s average wage of $13 an hour in the Twin Cities.

With Tim’s impending wedding, we went for a little afternoon bachelor’s party the other day. It was an experience in the opposite of what you’d expect.

For whatever reason (ahem, slacker) the best man, Tim’s brother Tom, never got around to planning a party. (Which apparently runs in the family — Tim was my best man and never planned a bachelor’s party.) So a week before the wedding he asked Tim if Tuesday was good. A great beginning. Being one of the only other guys in the wedding party available, I went along as well. That was it. Just us three. Two engaged guys and one married guy, living it up for an afternoon.

Tom showed up at my place at noon, and with his 4:30 p.m. meeting and Tim’s 5:00 p.m. shift at the library, we had about four hours including travel time to live it up. Knowing Tim’s appreciation for the Mall of America, we headed there.

After a diverse food court lunch, including Mexican, Asian, and corn dog cuisine, we rode the escalator to the fourth floor to check out Jillian’s. Their over-priced version of fun was a bit much, so despite the fact that they had bowling, we went to the arcade, which was only slightly over-priced. Exchanging a $20 bill for tokens really helped you forget the fact that each game cost about 66 cents (which isn’t nearly as bad as usual $1.00).

Apparently I haven’t been to an arcade in a while, but they’ve done away with gaming diversity. There were essentially two types of games: racing games and what I’ll call pre-virtual-reality games (rather than a joystick you use some type of physical object to manipulate your character in the game). The virtual games were mainly shoot ’em up games, including one with a machine gun, one with a pump-action shotgun, and one with a sniper rifle, but they also had “lifestyle” games, like the fishing game, the skateboarding game where you stand on a skateboard, the deer hunting game (yes, it’s as boring as it sounds), and fighting game with a sword, and of course, Dance Dance Revolution. And I can’t leave out the fire fighting game. Only after 9/11 would it work to have a game where you put out fires and save people, and only after 9/11 would they be able to guilt you into playing again by urging you to be a hero and save the dying people. Let’s just say the mayor didn’t make it on my watch.

So bachelorhood was celebrated in an afternoon of vicarious driving and shooting.

Ironically, across the hall from the arcade was the bastion of bachelorhood, Hooters. I’ve never done more than drive by a Hooters, so it was another experience to walk by a Hooters, complete with swimsuit photos in the window and a few waitresses out front in bright orange short shorts and bulging tanktops.

“Eyes on the floor,” Tim said as we passed, “always on the floor.” Tom commented on the purple carpet, and I mumbled, “God’s fabulous parque floor,” finishing the Simpsons quote.

Relevant magazine linked to an article from the Heritage Foundation on Understanding Poverty in America. The article questions how “poor” the poor really are, and it really confuses me. I’m mainly confused as to why Relevant linked to it. Sometimes they link to stuff that’s ridiculous or funny, and sometimes they link to stuff that’s straight-up serious. I’m not sure which way they’re taking this. But I guess how they take it doesn’t matter.

Frankly, the article pisses me off. It’s basically saying that those who live in poverty in the U.S. are actually pretty well off. They basically examined the government’s standards of poverty and took a look at those who meet those standards to see how bad life in poverty really is. Their conclusion is that it’s not too bad. It doesn’t say it explicitly in the article, but it’s pretty clear from the context on the site that it’s an effort to shoot down welfare.

Now I’ll admit that looking at poverty in America is a bit ridiculous. Compared to the rest of the world, the poor in our country are pretty well off. However, that doesn’t mean we can justify ignoring the problem, which is exactly what this article seems to be saying to me.

The article looks at a number of material considerations, like whether or not most poor people have a phone, a TV or a car, if they own a home and what condition it’s in, and whether not their children are eating properly. On all of these counts the “poor” come out pretty good.

I guess I’m just a bit miffed about the article. Most poor people I know have many of these things becase it’s a way to alleviate feelings of poverty (if we have a TV, we’re just like everyone else) or it’s a neccesity (try living without a car in an area with no public transit or getting a job without a phone). But just because the have a TV doesn’t mean they’re living it up. Many poor families would probably do better without a TV.

The article also argues that many poor families get by on what amounts to 16 hours of work per week, essentially accusing the poor of laziness.

I guess what really miffs me is everything I know about the poor through my wife. She works at a daycare center serving low-income families in what amounts to inner-city St. Paul. We live a few miles from the center on what you could call the edge of the ghetto. I see poverty all the time, and my wife interacts with it on a regular basis. While many of the families at the daycare center may have a TV or a car, that doesn’t mean they’re doing OK. And in many senses those families will do “OK,” meaning they’ll survive, but they’re often stuck in a continuing cycle of poverty. It breeds crime, gangs, and drugs. Even if they do have a TV, that doesn’t justify ignoring the poverty and allowing these problems to fester.

Her center opened a food shelf last year because government cuts made it hard for families to keep food on the table. Some kids will devour every meal they’re given at school because they don’t get enough at home. For many of these families poverty is a pride issue. They’d much rather suck it up and go hungry than admit they need help.

What’s really difficult is the welfare system. Many parents rely on goverment assistance to put their children in daycare. Without daycare, they can’t work. With recent goverment cuts, that daycare assistance was cut back and the center lost many families. What happens now? Rather than trying to get a job and get back on their feet, these families are forced to stay home because they can’t afford daycare. As a result, they’re back on welfare without a chance of moving on. At least with daycare assistance they had a job.

This article also ignored other ways poverty manifests itself. For the sake of pride a poor family might have a car, a TV, a cell phone, and own their own home and keep it in reasonable condition. But they might have no savings or any funds to turn to in an emergency. They probably have no life insurance or investments of any kind. If you look around their home they may have mattresses but no frames, a stereo but no paper to do homework on, or a TV but no books to speak of. I’m just making stuff up, but there are ways of cutting back and living on a minimal income that still inable you to enjoy some of the amenities of modern life.

I guess it just makes me mad when we try to write off poverty. Try talking to a poor man. Try living in a poor neighborhood. Try going hungry — not malnourished hungry, but skimping on a meal hungry. As minimal as those sacrifices may seem in the scope of things, they’re monumental comapred with how most of us live in America.

Wow, just caught Bono rocking the mic on C-SPAN. It was a conversation with the Kaiser Family Foundation about DATA and AIDS in Africa.

Bono is a runaway freight train when he talks about AIDS. He’s so passionate and has so much to say that he can’t get all the words, stats and stories out, and he can’t stay on topic to save his life.

Maybe we all need to be saving our pennies.

If you thought my recent blogs on the evils of Wal-Mart were over the top, why don’t you ask Patricia VanLester? She was knocked unconscious and trampled by shoppers rushing into Wal-Mart at 6 a.m. the day after Thanksgiving to buy $29 DVD players.

VanLester had a seizure and will be hospitalized at least a week. But never fear, Wal-Mart officials did call her at the hospital and offer to put a DVD player on hold for her. They also expressed disappointment, and hope she comes back “as a shopper.”

Read the story for yourself and draw your own conclusions. (link via jordoncooper.com via MetaFilter)

Interesting article about Wal-Mart (link via jordoncooper.com). It’s frightening to compare the benefits and hinderance Wal-Mart is to the U.S. economy. Delivering cheap products is great, but at what cost?

But aside from all the socio-economic factors, I just can’t stand that store. Crap piled in disarray to the ceiling. Yeah.

Tonight in Barnes & Noble I picked up the book The Two Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Mothers and Fathers Are Going Broke. I only got through the first few chapters, but it was eye-opening reading.

Every year more people file for bankrupcy than have heart attacks, get divorced, or graduate from college. It’s amazing that we mobilize around tragedies like divorce or heart attacks, but we don’t mobilize to help families in financial trouble.

The premise of the book is that two income families with children are more susceptible to financial ruin than single income families or two income families with no children. Not exactly an encouraging fact for this two income family that would like to have kids some day. I only got through the first few chapters, but it seems the primary reason for this is because that second income is becoming less and less about providing for extras and more and more about securing the elusive home in a good neighborhood with good schools. More than over-spending or affluent living, the search for safe neighborhoods and safe schools has caused two-income families to leverage that second income on a mortgage, removing the safety net and inviting financial ruin in times of crisis.

I’ll have to go back to Barnes & Noble to keep reading the book (or just break down and buy it), but it was a fascinating read. Basically the thought of getting ahead and sending a second parent into the workforce put more and more families behind. Part of it is keeping up with the Jones’, but much of it has to do with over-reaching to provide basic needs for children.

It’s kind of sobering. We’re a two income family, but mainly to stave off school debt. While our financial crisis has been difficult, we’ve been able to survive on one income and unemployment. That can’t continue forever, but it’s kind of scary to be riding that financial edge with a minimal safety net.

I’m also so surprised that very little of it has to do with affluent living. While we do buy more clothes, appliances, and goodies today, most of those goods have gotten cheaper, so everything balances out. We buy more appliances like dishwashers and dryers, but they cost less and last longer. We eat out more, but we spend less on groceries by buying in bulk and buying off-brands. Apparently it’s not all Affluenza.