Spielberg, China, and the Olympics

I know that I'm pretty much alone in my protest of the Chinese Olympics. And I must admit that I am appreciative of China's support, limited though it may be, of peacekeeping operations in the Darfur region of the Sudan.

But I point your attention towards this.

Defenders of the Beijing Olympics state that we must be careful to place a divide between sports and politics, that the Olympic games are about competition, not international relations. Which is why the US and the USSR took turns boycotting games. And why the 1980 Miracle on Ice was such a big deal. And why nations and regimes use the Olympics as a display of their power. Because above all, we are very careful to separate our national teams from politics.

This quote, in particular, disgusts me: "'Sports is too important. It is too important to use it as a political instrument,' said Milan Zver, the sports minister of Slovenia, which holds the EU presidency."

Sports are too important - more important than human lives. More important than making a point about natural rights. More important than those ideals which we in the West hold so dear?

Mr. Zver also said that the Olympics are not a good place to discuss politics - and under Olympic rules, it is true that athletes aren't allowed to discuss politics within within "Olympic zones." But I want to know, if the Olympics are all about coming together and putting differences aside, if the Olympics are signs of hope and reconciliation, then shouldn't they be the perfect place lobby for human rights?

China is using the Beijing Olympics as a tool to elevate its status as a world power. And after all, who can blame them? Hosting an international competition is a great way to get publicity. But why do we not play the same game? Large nations boycotting the games (or individuals boycotting the corporations that sponsor the games) would send a clear message to China: if you want to be an international superpower, than it's time to clean up your act.

Rock on.

Happy Birthday Emo!

Today is the day when millions of dollars are being spent on "loved" ones and those who don't get anything spend twenty-four consecutive hours listening to emo music.

Yes, it's true - my MP3 players is filled to the brim with depressing songs about being alone.

And what's with all of the pink????

Ahem. Moving on.

I really don't like this day. I'm sure if it wasn't my nineteenth consecutive Valentine's Day single, I might have a slightly different view, but I still want to vomit at the sight of commercialized romance.

So in honor of this horrendous event, I offer up a theory on why so many of my friends/classmates/kids-my-age are getting married. While still in college. And I say kid because most of them are under the age of twenty-five. Those of them in college haven't graduated yet.

As a single male in this age group, I ask myself – rather, I look at my other single friends and I shout - “What in the world is wrong with modern relationships?

And now I have an answer.

Modern Westernism and especially that in America preach a form of rugged individualism - we have to depend on ourselves even though God created us to exist in community. Kids are taught that we have to be able to make it on our own, that having to rely on others is a sign of weakness. You can look at most athletes and tell that they would rather, if they could, go it without a team. Our friendships are superficial, based around musical tastes, fashion sense, and socio-economic status. White middle class kids hang out with middle class kids. Our conversations circle around the arbitrary - weather, grades, teachers, sports, concerts, and movies - and the slightly-less-than-arbitrary - who's sleeping with whom, who's dating whom, who knows how to correctly use the word "whom" - ok, that last one's really just my group of language-geek-friends (yes, they do exist).

So by the time we get to a point where we're dating, we're so starved for a connection that we're willing to date anyone who so much as says hello - assuming that they are also of the same socio-economic status. Now, at this point, I should say that we like to say that race, class, and the like don't matter - but rarely will this ever be acted upon. And when we find it, we are willing to go all in, because we have tricked ourselves into thinking that saying "I love you" makes it true. We see it as the easiest way to cement the relationship. And we see marriage as that final step that we are oh so eager to take. Marriage is something official - sealed with a kiss and a piece of paper that we have to go to court to undo.

And then the awful, hideous truth sinks in - we don't actually love this person - we just like the idea of loving them enough to fool ourselves into this vain game of deceit. So, we go to court. We undo the marriage. And then we go back to step one, looking for a new relationship to help us get over the old one.

And the Church isn't helping with this - we tell ourselves that God has blessed marriage and that it's good. Oddly enough, we listen to Josh Harris and tell ourselves that dating is bad - so instead of having an actual relationship, we have this stiff, awkward period of more than friends, but not married. And we rush into marriage thinking that it's ordained by God and that we followed all of these neatly-defined rules. Because we as Christians have taken such an emphasis off of community that we only talk about what Jesus said about self. We all know it's easier to love God and ourselves if we don't have to worry about those pesky neighbors.

Let us not forget the Church's love-hate relationship with sex. We love to talk about how it's God's gift to married people. But anything outside of that, we hate. So we dangle it like a string in front of our youth groups, saying, "See how great this is? But not until you're married." It's like baking a sheet of warm brownies only to tell the child waiting expectantly that he can't have any until after dinner. Don't get me wrong - you there, with the copy of I Kissed Dating Good-Bye, pay attention. I'm not saying I support sex outside of marriage. I'm just saying that if we want kids to not have sex before marriage, we should probably be a little more open about it. Until then, kids are going to have premarital sex. And worse than that, they are going to get married just to have guilt-free sex. And they'll enjoy their honeymoons a lot. And then they'll get home and realize that their marriage is based purely around a teenage infatuation and the desire to have sex.

Studies have shown that teenage Christians (active-tense, as in they are Christians when they do this) lose their virginities sooner than non-Christian teens. And the Christian divorce rate is as high as the national average. And we wonder why.

Now for the "But of course, there are obvious exceptions..." - yes, yes there are. My friends are getting married this summer - he's a college grad working on a second degree and his fiance is an undergrad. And I highly expect them to have a strong, healthy marriage. I wish them God's blessings. But they are the exception, not the rule.

I wish I could end this on a hopeful note, I really do. But I don't see any hope outside of a major change in our culture. And if all of the pink candy in Kroger is a sign, it's not going to happen very soon.

Rock on.

Drew has: Voted. Plus one: Sticker

For the weird title, blame...most of my video game geek friends. I call them such with love.

Anyway, I am pleased to announce that Georgia has open primaries. Which means that, as an independent, I got to vote. Cool.

When you don't live on campus, it's a lot easier to get to your polling place, mostly because it's closer to campus (for some people) than the polling place for those who do live on campus. I sense a bit of a disconnect somewhere...

Anyway, in light of the fact that so many state elections have major flaws, I thought I'd make a few observations and suggestions.

1. Get rid of the caucus system. Getting to your polling place is hard enough. You shouldn't have to devote an entire night to it. This set-up almost inherently rules out poor single parents, a lot of shift workers, and quite a few subgroups. What if you can't find a sitter for your three year old? What if you've got a shift during the caucus? People may have prepared responses for these objections - in fact, I'm sure of it - but the incredibly low voter turn out in states that rely on caucuses supports the claims taught in every high school civics class. Everywhere.

2. Get rid of closed primaries. Yes, I know that primaries pick party candidates. But we live in a two-party system (in fact, not in theory - along the same lines, screw you, Duverger). There is a much easier way to do this - you get to vote in one primary. Just one. You get to support one candidate. The end. Some use the argument that a person from Party A could vote for a candidate in Party B that they think is less likely to win in a national election. Like, if a Republican voted for Lieberman in the 2004 Democratic primaries. However, this argument holds very little water because in a closed primary system, the same person is still capable of the same thing, they would merely have to change their party affiliation on paper. To go back to the example, said Republican would only have to change his status to Democrat, then vote for Lieberman in the primary and Bush in the election. And under the current closed primary system, if a member of Party A is fed up with his party, he can't vote for a candidate from another party without filling out useless paperwork. Some of my Libertarian friends (the ones who are actually registered Libertarians, not the ones who complain about drugs not being legal) can't vote for Ron Paul in the primaries because they're not Republicans. Don't get me wrong, I don't like Paul, but his supporters should be able to support him.

3. Move all of the primaries to one day. This back-and-forth crap is annoying. We focus more on where the candidates stand in comparison to their fellow party members and not focusing on where they stand to their real opponents. We spend too much time talking about how important the first states are when, in reality, they aren't. Even pundits admit to this. Save time. Save money.

4. Make election day a state/national holiday. I voted between classes. I know people who aren't voting because they don't have a break in classes long enough to get to their polling places. Enough said.

5. Give people, especially university students, the option of an alternative polling place. Granted: I was incredibly happy to find out that my polling place is on the university bus line. But then again, it used to be on my way to class. Last year, it was out of walking distance and not on a bus line. If students, faculty, and staff of a college/university could vote on campus, we would notice a tremendous rise. And guess what? It could be easy. Step 1: Fill out registration card. Step 2: Check box requesting Application for Alternative Polling Place. There's no reason a campus of 35,000 students (not to mention faculty and staff) shouldn't have a polling place. Most students I know aren't voting because it's too much of a hassle to get an absentee ballot. We can change that.

6. Get rid of super-delegates/electoral college. Let the voters pick the candidates/presidents. Hillary is leading Obama by a tremendous amount just because most of the party leadership likes her. President Bush beat Al Gore because the electoral college isn't bound by the way the state votes. We call ourselves a democracy, but we have these huge structures getting in the way of it.

End rant.

We complain about low voter turnouts, but do nothing to fix it.

Mostly because if we did, people would start paying attention. And then they would realize that the two parties in power aren't that different and do very little and get paid way to much. And that would be bad for the two parties in power who, well, who make the election rules.

Rock on.

In Honor of Dr. King

Today, I sit in the middle of a three-day weekend and enjoy the comfort of my apartment, coffee included. Ok, that's a lie. I didn't finish the post on time, so now I'm outside of the three-day weekend. But I still have my coffee by my side. But anyway, it seems to be this way every year - I enjoy this early-January vacation and sleep in on Monday. I dare to say almost every kid in America shares this same view of the weekend.

But something just doesn't quite add up - I have always understood why Reverend King was so important. Being the son of a pastor, I have understood the importance and beauty of his speeches, which oft draw from the biblical imagery of the Old Testament prophets and the teachings of Christ. Being the son of a soldier, I have seen and understood the importance of racial equality and the beauty of diverse communities. It's just that for some reason, I have never been able to fully appreciate the day. And as I said earlier, I think I speak for every kid and student in the US - as evidenced by the "MLK Day Blow-Out Parties" being held around Athens tomorrow. As well as the fact that everybody I know spent the day either catching up on homework or goofing off.

In our educational system's push to teach about Dr. King, we learn about his childhood, a few of his marches, and the "I Have a Dream" speech. Almost to a point where we are "emotionally dead" (I beg your forgiveness for such a cliché) to the speech itself and can no longer fully appreciate what Rev. King was talking about. This is not to say the youth of my generation don't care about desegregation (though I wonder if we realize how important it really is). Instead, I'm saying that the "watered-down" version of King's life we receive nearly destroys the full impact of the break - King was involved in a lot more than just civil rights, and his involvement in civil rights went a lot further than some speeches and marches. I can remember from school, the explanations was something like this, "Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was the leader of the African-American civil rights movement in the 1960s. He is best known for his non-violence and the "I Have a Dream" speech." The end. What of his motivation? In a world where violence was the problem and some claimed that violence was the answer, why was Dr. King a pacifist?

But instead of actually looking at the life of Rev. King with the attention it deserves, the five-minute version has reduced the break to nothing but another Saturday. Which is likely the reason that I spent most of Monday covered in green paint (don't ask) and most of my friends were catching up on homework. But shouldn't a remembrance of Rev. King be something more than another day out of class? Around the nation, there are protests and rallies, memorial services, and the like., but the crowd is composed of mostly older people.

I'm thinking of something on a grander scale - something to make Dr. King's vision more than just a dream. Next year, instead of sleeping in or posting a late blog post (two days and counting...), let's change the world. Let's bring King's message to those who are still poor and down-trodden. Let's work together, black, white, or otherwise, for Brother Martin's dream.

Let's take his Dream to the homeless shelters and the soup kitchens. Let's take his Dream to the youth-outreach programs and inner-city playgrounds. Let's take his Dream to Tent City of Athens and the Ninth Ward of New Orleans.

"Let freedom ring. And when this happens, and when we allow freedom ring—when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children—black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics —will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual: "Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

Rock on.

Maybe Islam Has Found It's Emergent Movement

Alright, it's a far cry from the Shane Claiborne of the Arab world, but it's a start. Oddly enough, it is with Osama bin Laden's son, Omar.

Read the article here.

Shalom,
Drew

New Semester, New Classes, New Job, New Posts...Maybe

Yeah. The title says it all.

January means that you should have invested in a textbook company last month and should be ready to sell it halfway through February (seriously, that might be a good way to pay for classes - or at least a textbook or two).

I'm taking a whopping fifteen hours (for those interested, Intro to International Relations, Social Justice, Religion in Literature, Apocalyptic Literature, and giving German another try) along with working (temporarily) for the University bookstore (another fifteen hours, at least until the end of the month.) and leadership responsibilities with Invisible Children and CCF.

I have several ideas for posts. Quite a few, really. But I'm still trying to work out that whole "proper time management" thing. I aim to have it down to a point where I can start blogging on weekends instead of trying to play catchup with reading. Hopefully, my attention span will get in line with the rest of my mind.

We shall see.

Shalom,
Drew

Post Script: I'm also going to update my links as well. That's at the very back seat, though.

I Only Have Time for Eternity

Thomas Merton once said, "The most wonderful moment of the day is that when creation in its innocence asks permission to "be" once again, as it did on the first morning that ever was."

On my flight back from Korea, I was privileged with the amazing opportunity to witness the sunrise twice in one day. For those who have yet to see such an event, I highly recommend taking your next flight early in the morning. As the plane takes off and the sun comes over the horizon and its radiance shines out over the ground, moving slowly to envelop all things for as far as the eye can see.

I'm almost never awake for sunrise - I am, after all, a college student, and sleep is very important for me. And add to this the fact that I'm a nighthawk. Coffee at midnight? Sure.

But the few times a year I do witness this natural miracle, I cannot help but be reminded of the glory of the Resurrection. The dark, cold landscape illuminated by the warm light of the sun is the perfect analogy for the eternal life of Christ. Everything is made new again and we slowly begin to rise from our slumber to go about our work, all the day singing praises to God.

Rock on.

I Think We Crossed Wires Somewhere...

Tradition states that Martin Luther did a lot of thinking on the toilet. As a man who suffered from digestive problems, he, naturally, spent a lot of time there.

Well, I can't claim such unusual inspiration for this, but given that I have what I call ADS (Attention Deficit Shiny - as close as you can get to ADD without actually having ADD), I do get a lot of ideas in odd places. This one is from brushing my teeth.

I started to think of the movie Fun with Dick and Jane and the scene where Jim Carrey gets arrested by the Border Patrol. (If you think you're missing something, don't worry; you're not.)

A lot of very conservative people complain about immigration, or more specifically people illegally crossing the border from Mexico to the US (in the sense of fairness, there is some concern about the Canadian border, but very, very little). Some even go so far as to say that it is the largest threat our country faces.

Now don't get me wrong, I support immigration reform. But (yes, there is always a "but") not to the extent of deploying the National Guard or building a wall. A better-funded Border Patrol really would do the trick, if only people would get over their tax-phobia.

People say that something needs to be done - tighter border security and tighter screening processes for businesses that rely on unskilled or semiskilled labor (construction and farming come to mind) on the government's part.

But here's the rub - they claim the government is doing it's job. Because of this, we get organizations like the Minuteman Project (see my views on them here). The goal of the Minuteman Project is to alert Border Patrol officials to illegal crossings (though they often go beyond this). What I want to know is why they don't attempt to screen businesses as well?

Why is there no "Support Legal Labor" movement? A group of local businesses and individuals who sign a statement affirming that they will not higher undocumented workers? This is a much easier movement to coordinate than the Minuteman Project.

I have a theory on this. Only a theory, and not really supported by anything, so take it as you will. And I'm sure my greatest critic will say that I'm "buying everything they're selling" at my "liberal" university (I take it as a mark of pride that with as few readers as I have, I still manage to attract a critic). And oddly enough, I'm at odds with both liberals and conservatives about immigration - finally something they agree on. I suppose I should be pleased with this step towards unity. But anyway, on with my theory. I think it's that people are too cheap to actually care. Sure, they'll go on a camping trip with their friends to watch people walk through the desert. But God forbid they give up cheap construction and produce. Imagine the horror of our fast-food workers being paid above minimum wage.

Let's face it - there is no way to stop every single person who tries to cross the border illegally. But there is a way to get rid of the incentive, and oddly enough, it can be done without government involvement. But somehow, people decided it'd be better to take border patrol into their own hands...yeah. Right.

I find it funny (in a very disgusting, disturbing sort of way) that we are willing to, as private citizens, crack down on those crossing the border, but not those hiring them. Advocates of such radical reform as the wall and the deployment of the National Guard argue that illegal residents steal jobs. But what about the people giving them the jobs?

Just something to think about.

Rock on.

Christmas Traditions

Most people know I'm a military brat. More specifically, an Army brat. This means that my family moves around - a lot. My dad's been in the Army for about seventeen years. In that time, my family has moved eight times. We've spent Christmas in eight different houses. Actually, we've only spent it in seven different houses. When we lived in New Jersey, we didn't get there until after the holiday. Instead, that Christmas was spent in guest quarters. Occasionally, we would travel and see family, but most of the time we were to far away to make the trip.

This year, we are "breaking in" a new house in Korea. That means that, as a college student, I'm celebrating Christmas in a house that I saw for the first time about a week ago.

With all of this moving around, Christmas isn't really about being "home" for the holidays. Home is wherever dad happens to be stationed. Going to see extended family isn't really home because I didn't grow up around them. Going to my parents' house really isn't home because, as my mom puts it, I come in the door and hear, "Welcome home! Let me show you where your bedroom is."

Instead, celebrating Christmas is really more about the traditions my family has set over the years. Being with the family, regardless of where we are. Going to the candlelight service on Christmas Eve. Taking all day to open our gifts (you think I'm kidding, but we always find a way to stretch it out until after dinner). Opening our gifts in a certain order. Getting gifts from "Santa". Eating cinnamon rolls on Christmas morning. Listening to my dad tell us the story of "Eliezer the Unreliable". Listening to my mom read The Polar Express on Christmas Eve.

As I said, this is my first Christmas in Korea. And I'm enjoying getting to explore a new country. And I'm happy that my friend from high school, Kurt, is over here too. But really, I'm just excited that my family's traditions make me feel at home halfway across the world.

Rock on.
Merry Christmas.

Eliezer the Unreliable

"Eliezer the Unreliable" is a sermon my dad wrote and has always been very important to my family and I.

His reading it has become something of a Christmas tradition at my house.

Enjoy.

Shalom,
Drew