Wendell Berry On Sex

Not entirely unrelated to Tuesday's post on abortion, I love what eminent Kentucky writer Wendell Berry has to say about sex in America.

The "conservatives" more or less attack homosexuality, abortion, and pornography, and the "liberals" more or less defend them. Neither party will oppose sexual promiscuity. The "liberals" will not oppose promiscuity because they do not wish to appear intolerant of "individual liberty." The "conservatives" will not oppose promiscuity because sexual discipline would reduce the profits of corporations, which in their advertisements and entertainments encourage self-indulgence as a way of selling merchandise.

From Wendell Berry, Sex, Economy, Freedom & Community, (New York: Pantheon, 1993): 123.

While Berry may be generalizing a bit here, I think his point is a sharp one. And, to Tuesday's post on China's sex-selective abotions, abortion (and unwanted pregnancy) is a result--not a cause. Perhaps a focused conversation about sex can elicit better thinking about some of the issues Berry points out. Of course, that's the issue. The "two sides" would rather make it about political jostling than addressing the root of the problem. As Berry says, there's a lot to lose by doing that. A close examination of our views of sex, its use as a marketing tool, and sexuality's role in Creation (big C, not just procreation) might help give us fresh perspective on sex in America. But, that takes some transparency, courage, and a willingness to (2008 Buzzword Warning) change.

New U.S. Religion Data

I love maps. My office walls are covered in them. And, the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life has a whole mess o' new maps, charts, and graphs related to American religion. For a quick taste, here is a portrait of American Evangelical churches.

There is more here that you probably ever wanted to know about religious demographics in America. You can sort by tradition, gender, income, race, region, and on and on starting on the main page.

My early favorite for weirdest question in the survey: "How often do you receive a definite answer to a specific prayer request -- would you say at least once a week, once or twice a month, several times a year, seldom, or never?"

And, Jehovah's Witness members took home the Golden Clasped Hands Award for praying the most. A whopping 89% said that they "pray daily." Mormons and historically black churches took silver and bronze. Evangelicals finished a disappointing fourth.

Seriously, this is really interesting data full of thought-provoking pieces, cultural insight, and humor. Give it a look.

Sued in the Spirit

The next time you plan to have the Holy Spirit knock you down, make sure you have a couple of big, strong, burly "catchers" nearby lest you crack your head on the floor. Otherwise, a mess of stitches, head trauma, and litigation, may occur.

From the plaintiffs complaint:

Mr. Lincoln received the spirit and fell backwards striking the carpet-covered cement floor with the back of his head and back, causing him to sustain severe and permanent injuries ...
[Mr. Lincoln accuses the church of being] negligent in not supervising the catchers to be sure that they stood behind the person being prayed for and in front of the visiting minister to assure that they could catch someone should they have a dizzying, fainting or falling in the spirit as had occurred on many occasions before.


Be careful out there, people.

Genetic Limits of Obesity

The latest reports suggest that childhood obesity is leveling off. Whatever the reason, that's good news. Hopefully, it will start to decline.

But, some experts suggest that we've merely saturated the field of those predisposed to become obese at a young age. Here is a snippet, but you can read the whole piece here.

If, at 17 percent, we've hit the "saturation" point for child obesity, we're extremely lucky. There's no historical basis for knowing where the saturation point is, since our species has never before lived in an environment so full of ease and abundance. The far more dangerous possibility is that the saturation point is higher. In fact, given that we evolved in conditions of scarcity, it's logical to suspect that the tendency to seek and store fat is nearly universal. As the Los Angeles Times observes, "the idea that childhood weights have simply topped out doesn't quite square ... [One expert] said the fact that 60% of U.S. adults were either overweight or obese suggested that children had plenty of room to grow."

Largest Beef Recall in U.S. History

First, the good news: experts suggest that the chances of a major health crisis caused by this meat is "remote."

Now, the bad news:

The Humane Society of the United States showed videotapes on January 30 showing workers at the plant using several abusive techniques to make animals stand up and pass a pre-slaughter inspection. These included ramming cattle with forklift blades and using a hose to simulate the feeling of drowning.

These animals COULD NOT STAND on their own. It's illegal to slaughter an animal in this condition because IT IS SICK and should not be consumed. This was discovered because of some undercover video work at Westland and Hallmark Meat Co. How often is this happening when there are no cameras around?

This is the largest beef recall in U.S. history: 143 million pounds of it. And where do you think much of this meat was destined? Why, the Federal School Lunch Program and fast food chains, of course!!! In other words, kids--mostly.

I'm not a (mostly) vegetarian because of any moral issues with killing animals for food. I am a (mostly) vegetarian because of the meat industry. I am also not an evangelistic (mostly) vegetarian. But, if I don't catch it or kill it myself out of the wild, or if I cannot purchase free range or wild meats, I simply do not eat it if at all possible.

And, this situation is a big reason why.

Life Without Football

Wow, another good one from Kyle Whelliston on football and American culture.

Football is a game that has become 15 percent sport and 85 percent extraneous matter. The reports from training camp, the player profiles drawn in heroic bas-relief, the ex-players debating concepts like "knowing how to win." Indeed, the football broadcast in 2007 has become the final evolution of the spambox, padded with balding cures, penis pills, dangerous financial offers, and tits. And like spam, it's all very difficult to filter out.

If you do not like football, you will love this essay. If you like football, it will challenge you to ask yourself why. If you are apathetic about football, it will speak to larger cultural concerns.

Poopeating Grin

A call to ingest more fecal matter from Slate.com.

Our food is hosed and boiled and rinsed and detoxified and frozen and salted and preserved. Recently, we have begun to irradiate it, too—just in case. As a result, when our bodies encounter the occasional inevitable bug, they're unhappy. Our centuries-long program of winnowing out all the muck has turned us into sissies and withered the substantial part of the immune system mediated by our intestinal tract.

This is why I do not feel so badly about letting my nine-month-old lick floors and chew on our 100-year-old traveling wardrobe which serves as our coffee table.

I think I'll ask for a side of axle grease and a splash of poo with my oatmeal at Teresa's on Friday.

iPhone-y

Obviously, I am not anti-technology. I am typing this post on a computer on an internet blog. But, we sometimes fail to ask whether new technology is good or necessary, and to evaluate its impact on our communities and relationships.

I tend to view most technological advancement much like I do cars. How efficient is this thing? How long before it becomes obsolete? How much energy will it use? How will this impact the environment? How much does it cost? Does it replace vital human interaction or impact communities in a negative way? How much time will this thing save/cost?

Which brings us to the iPhone. I do not have one and likely will not until there is some other gadget which is way more advanced that makes the iPhone an "old model" in three or four years (months?). As serious as I am about running, I almost always buy "last year's model" runing shoes for 25% less than the new model. Why? Because year to year, the changes are mostly cosmetic. Maybe when the iPhone uses up its "Geek Cred" (I totally stole that from another blogger), I'll have one in five years. Maybe not. Therefore, I will not pretend that I know a lot about the iPhone or why it is the greatest item ever fashioned.

That said, it seems to me that Apple pulled one over on their fanboys and fangirls with this $200 price cut.

Steven Levitt, University of Chicago economist and author of Freakonomics (a must read if you have not already read it), had this to say earlier in the week:

If you ask an economist how to price a new product that is just being introduced, the response you will get is that you should charge a very high price at first and then steadily reduce that price over time.

There are two reasons for doing this. First, it generally gets cheaper to produce things over time, so it makes sense to lower prices in response. Second, people vary widely in their willingness to pay for a new gadget. By starting high, you get as much money as you can from those who really want the product, then expand the market at the lower price point.

Hmm … that sounds exactly like what Apple just did with the iPhone. They brought it out at $599, sold one million iPhones, and then dropped the price to $399 after two months, in the hopes of selling nine million more this year...

What economists (and Apple too, I guess) ignore is that consumers hate it when companies follow practices that look like they are designed to maximize profits. You won’t find it in economic models, but consumers care about the reason a firm chooses the price it chooses...

Apple’s price cut looks like one driven purely by a desire to maximize profit, which is why everyone is so mad.

Of course, there is an economic argument that Apple made a good financial decision for their company...in the short run. But part of Apple's gig is that people believe they are getting a better, more innovative product from Apple than they get from other companies. Cutting the price of the greatest invention since the wheel by 33% after two months on the market severely undermines that credibility. It could potentially hurt the Apple mystique for future purchases.

Wendell Berry, Kentucky farmer and writer, set forth this rubric for evaluating technology in his essay "Why I Am Not Going to Buy a Computer":

1. The new tool should be cheaper than the one it replaces.
2. It should be at least as small in scale as the one it replaces.
3. It should do work that is clearly and demonstrably better than the one it replaces.
4. It should use less energy than the one it replaces.
5. If possible, it should use some form of solar energy, such as that of the body.
6. It should be repairable by a person of ordinary intelligence, provided that he or she has the necessary tools.
7. It should be purchasable and repairable as near to home as possible.
8. It should come from a small, privately owned shop or store that will take it back for maintenance and repair.
9. It should not replace or disrupt anything good that already exists, and this includes family and community relationships.

Again, someone who knows a lot more about the iPhone than I do will have to perform this evaluation. And, while I will likely never live an agrarian life quite like Mr. Berry, he does raise some important points that might help us resist the urge to fall into the iHerd of iPeople buying iGadgets for the sake of I.

Going Local: Football

As we head toward fall, I plan on posting a piece on "going local" from time to time. This week, let's start with something downright American: sports. In fact, in a strange way, rooting for our local university's basketball team is what originally pushed me to go to farmer's markets, explore my city, appreciate the climate, etc. That initial love of something local, peripheral as basketball may be, pushed me to seek new ways to support local people, businesses, and athletics.

I have blogged before about how television undercuts all that's good about athletics. To paraphrase something I said a couple of year's ago on my hoops blog:

Fans cannot tailgate with college buddies through television. There is no virtual or Hi-Def replacement for the smell of popcorn wafting into my section at Diddle Arena. In basketball, a last second shot to win the game registers as a measly two points in a computer-generated fantasy league, but in reality it wields the terrible power to spark jubilation or strike crushing despair into thousands of hearts the moment it hits the bottom of the net. It can suck the air out of an arena, or send it into total pandemonium. There is no plasma screen that can replicate nippy winter walks to a college stadium with wives, children, and family, nor the rush of warm air that hits your face as you click through the turnstile. Instead of encountering the power of a fight song or alma mater ringing in your ears, you get muted crowd noise with a "Brought to you by...State Farm Insurance" promo. Instead of engaging in halftime conversation with the elderly, living encyclopedia sitting next to you who has had season tickets for thirty-five years, you get an army of talking heads in suits and cakey make-up yammering at one another, all wrapped in more rapid-fire rounds of commercials.

We have a local university (WKU) that sells season football tickets for $25. That's for the ENTIRE season. To be clear: that's five college football games for $25. I once paid $125 for ONE game at Ohio State. Twenty-five bucks gives you access to five weekends to pack up the grill and head to campus with friends and family to tailgate, barbecue, throw around the pigskin, and interact with others from your community. Five weekends to meet someone new on the South Lawn. Five weekends to cheer in unison with thousands of others for a local team.

If the response to this is, "Yeah, but WKU is not playing anyone worth watching," then please go ahead and click on the TV and begin the game watching. Many fall prey to ESPN's ploys which cultivate the idea that the only important football is played by a handful of schools that play on TV every week. ESPN is a TV network! Of course, they would LOVE to foster this idea!

No, this is a chance to enjoy high level, local sports for a minimal financial investment. When a family of four can invest $100, and spend five Saturdays eating together, cheering together, connecting to something local together, it is at least worth thinking about.

Maybe football is not your bag, and that is perfectly fine. The message here is that this is just one of many ways to connect locally.

Do you want perfect picture resolution? Go see the game IN THE STADIUM. Do you want perfect color and amazing clarity? Try the view from Section HH. Do you want to go beyond Hi-Def? Try the real thing.

It not only works for football; it works for most areas of life.

Obesity: A Visual

Check out the growth of obesity epidemic in visual format. It's a map of the U.S. and a year-by-year update starting in 1985. It is pretty startling. It was not that long ago that no state had an obesity rate higher than 14% (1985). Now, practically every state is at 20% or higher and a full third of states are 25% or more. Mississippi, Louisiana, and West Virginia are over 30%!

Fast food and snack food companies say that people have to take "personal responsibility" for their choices. That may be true, but this kind of shift does not occur without some SERIOUS help from marketing and a titanic shift in cultural values and behavior.

Notice that Kentucky and several other southern states are always among the most obese states.

TURN THE TIDE. Personal choice, legislation, whatever...I do not care. Just do your best to find an effective way to change this. It is hurting our bodies, our minds, our lifespan, and our quality of life. We do not have to be ultra-thin, world-class athletes, beautiful, or have ripped abs. We can be a lot fitter and allow our bodies an easier way do their job by streamlining a bit.

Apathetic About Independence

My family was traveling from dawn 'til way-past-dusk last night, so my Independence Day post is a day late.

Two quotes to spur us to activity:

"The trouble is that we have taken our democracy for granted; we have thought
and acted as if our forefathers had founded it once and for all. We have
forgotten that is has to be enacted anew in every generation." ~John Dewey

For all the ills in our government, political parties, society, and oval office, this is my country. The system may need fixing, but it is the system (or some semblence of it) that has been in place for 220+ years now.

The forefathers were not deistic beings who wound the watch of America and set it in perfect motion for all eternity. The ideas that they set forth must be re-enacted by us and by those who follow us. The system may be corrupt or even broken, but we must be the ones to make it work or do repair. The government of this country is not a product to be sold to us by Democrats or Republicans, presidents or governors--which is what it seems to have turned into sometimes. It is, "We, the people."

"The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush.
It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment."
~Robert M. Hutchens

The less we care, the less we vote. The less we vote, the less we control direction. The less we control direction, the more those with power and money control us.

The biggest threat to America is not terrorism (sorry, Rudy, I know you are banking on that one). It's us. It's our apathy about our role in the decision-making process. It's our willingness to vote for American Idol, but not our representatives or our even our president.

I'm far from a political pundit, but ANY entity composed of members who do not care about it is bound to erode and eventually die.

Do you know who your representatives are? Your senators? Find out. Participate. Create change.

The Fast Supper

Da Vinci's The Last Supper











And, the Fast Supper








I love how they put the feminine character to the right of "The King" creating Dan Brown's "chalice" image from The Da Vinci Code. Clever.

They make T-shirts, if anyone has an itch to buy me something.

Shaq Attack on Fat

Behold! An NBA superstar does something to be admired: he is attempting to change the lives of several kids who have been diagnosed as "morbidly obese" and at severe risk for health problems. In the previews for Shaq's Big Challenge on ABC's Good Morning America today, it appears that much of the problem lies with parents who are unable to say "no" to their kids requests for food.

Shaq is doing his part to turn around some disturbing trends in American health.

1. According to the U.S. Surgeon General, American children born in 2007 may have a shorter life expectancy than their parents. This is attributed mainly to lack of exercise, poor dietary habits, and subsequent complications from this lifestyle including obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and many other other ailments.

2. Americans are shorter in stature than their their European counterparts. This was not always the case. Economist Paul Krugman writes,

There is normally a strong association between per capita income and ...
average height. By that standard, Americans should be taller than Europeans:...
But ... something has caused Americans to grow richer without growing
significantly taller.

Why is this so? The changing ethnic mix you say? Nope, says Krugman.

It’s not the population’s changing ethnic mix...: the stagnation ... is clear even ...[for] native-born whites.

Americans are a wealthy lot compared to just about any country, but many other countries are growing taller than we are.

3. The U.S., with our immense wealth, top-notch medical facilities, access to education, and being the world's superpower, should have the highest life expectancy of any country, right? Well, that's asking a lot. But, top 10 for sure...right? No. Top 20? Top 30? Top 40? No, no, and no. We checked in at #45 according to the 2007 World Fact Book, behind nearly every country that most folks consider "highly developed." Japan, Switzerland, Australia, France, Iceland, Canada, Italy, Spain, Norway, Israel, Greece, Austria, Netherlands, New Zealand, Germany, Belgium, Finland, Jordan, Puerto Rico, and Bosnia and Herzegovenia all rank ahead of the U.S. among many other smaller countries. Why?

As an aside, most of these countries have a lower infant mortality rate, too. Again, I ask, why?

Do these countries have better health care? Better access to it? Better genetics? I doubt that any of those are true. I would hypothesize that they have healthier lifestyles. When visiting Spain a couple of years ago, an older Spanish lady told me that the secrets to their long lives and healthy bodies were "olive oil and lots of walking."

So, I will tune in at 8 pm central to see Shaq's "tough love" approach with these kids. I generally hate reality TV and since Lost is in reruns, there is not a single TV show that I watch on a weekly basis. I will watch tonight mostly out of sheer curiosity.

It is significant that a person weighing 335 pounds is doing this. He has just 14% body fat, which is in the low-normal range for a man. It would not be nearly as effective if some 150-lb fitness trainer was doing this show. Shaq is literally and figuratively larger than life for these kids. For all of my blogging against our weight trends in the U.S., a healthy body has little to do with how thin a person appears. There are plenty of healthy people who are viewed as "bigger" or "heavy."

God gave us all a body. Some of us are better designed for marathoning. Others are better suited for basketball. Still others have the build for swimming, power-lifting, football, or some other activity. An individual's ideal body is not found on the Gap Iconostasis, or on the pages of fashion magazines. Shaq's ideal body weight is 335, give or take. Serena Williams will never be small, but she is quite fit and an amazing athlete. Charles Barkley, while a bit pudgy these days, was known as the "Round Mound of Rebound" in his playing days, but he was a brick house. He was just wide. The U.S. Women's soccer team has done wonders for projecting an image of healthy bodies over just thin ones. (A longer "body image" post will have to wait until another day.)

We all will not and should not look the same, but we can all strive for health whether our ideal weight is 120, 150, 200, or 335. Hopefully, Shaq can help turn the tide for kids in this country.
He has been a collegiate All-American, an MVP, an NBA Finals Champ, a clothing/shoe mogul, a rapper, and an actor. This health thing should be a piece of cake...rice cake, that is.

Dream Away

As Americans battle their bulging waistlines with pills, Ab Lounges, crash diets, hours in the gym, Joggin' in a Jug, or some other program or drug (or even surgery), they may be ignoring a simple but effective ally in maintaining their health: sleep. Research on how sleep affects weight and general health is still in its infancy, but there are already important academic studies that link sleep to obesity and decreased life expectancy among many other health problems (increased stress, digestive disorders, high blood pressure, increased risk of stroke/heart attack, it's a long list).

How much sleep is enough? Well, everyone is different, but it seems the greatest health risks occur primarily among those who sleep less than seven hours per night, those who have frequently interrupted sleep, and those with sleep disorders. Most people have an "ideal" sleep time of 7-9 hours of quality, uninterrupted sleep.

Many Americans seem to take pride in "getting by" on less sleep, linking their lack of rest with good work ethic and a willingness to do whatever it takes to achieve their goals. That simply feeds the "faster" culture that has been discussed here before. Like poor dietary habits, the cumulative effects will not be felt for years or maybe decades, so the current consequences of just "feeling bad" or tired are tolerated. Sleep is sometimes viewed as "wasted" time, and people even go as far as to avoid it or fight it off by staying up too late, then relying on caffeine to jump start them in the morning and keep them awake in the afternoons and evenings. We have more important things to do than, say, give our body its biologically required time to rest, heal, and keep us healthy.

Our body regulates certain bodily functions while we sleep. In regards to weight control, two very important hormones are regulated primarily during sleep. Leptin and ghrelin may sound like Tolkien characters, but in actuality they are hormones that regulate our appetite and our "full" mechanism.

One hormone, ghrelin, which triggers appetite in humans, was found at higher
levels in people who regularly underslept. Another hormone, leptin, which lets
the body know when it is full and should stop eating, was found at much lower
levels in people who did not get enough sleep.(1)

Depriving our bodies of sleep disrupts our ability to identify real hunger or when we feel full. Obviously, this contributes to overreating and late-night snacking which leads to excess caloric intake.

Apart from weight gain, our bodies do important repair work while we rest. When engaging in physical training, increased strength, endurance, and speed all come from a simple formula: stress+recovery. Too many rely on a stress+stress pattern. When a goal is achieved, they immediately push to the next goal. In my training, I do no more than 3-4 "hard" runs per week. The other days are strictly easy, pleasurable runs or off days. Doing 6-7 hard workouts per week does not make me faster (trust me, I've tried this). It wears me down and sets me up for injury and burnout. I think the formula for daily life is similar: work hard, play hard, rest hard...well, that does not quite work, but you get the idea.

If you are a Navy Seal, maybe you have to condition yourself to survive on four hours of sleep per week during Hell Week (first week of training). But, for those of us living our daily lives without the immediate threat of extreme sleep deprivation or "sleep torture," we should make sure that we are getting adequate shut-eye. It helps us recover, repair tissue, "reset" our brains, control our appetites and hunger mechanisms, maintain a healthy body weight, and lowers our risk for myriad health problems.

There is an old saying that the sleep-deprived often trumpet in their defense: "I'll sleep when I'm dead." C'est vrai, but perhaps we can prolong the coming of the Big Sleep by taking getting (roughly) eight hours nightly in the present time. Adequate sleep can improve one's quality of life simply by giving a biological need it's proper place in our list of priorities.

CEREAL UPDATE
I knew that there had to be a reason I had missed out on the Kroger 100% Natural love fest. When I picked up a box in the store this week, I remembered why: 2 g of Trans Fat per serving. I calmly put it back on the shelf. This "100% Natural" is a farce.

"Kroger, the nation's biggest food retailer after Wal-Mart, sells a store-brand
granola, '100% Natural Cereal,' that contains partially hydrogenated cottonseed and soybean oil. But none of its natural-category products include high-fructose corn syrup, Kroger spokesman Gary Huddleston says."(2)

Shame on you, Kroger. The "100% Natural" title is incredibly misleading. It's like "All Natural" 7UP. It still has high fructose corn syrup. I'll stick with Kashi.

(1) http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/02/0224_050224_sleep_2.html
(2) http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_1039.cfm

Tony the Tiger Slims Down

On the heels of yesterday's post, Kellogg's announced today that they are setting a new standard of responsibility in my beloved cereal aisle. The commitment is two-pronged: 1) more careful in the way that they market to children, and 2) front-of-the-box nutritional information.

Never underestimate the power of litigation. Some will argue that parents' suing McDonald's or Kellogg's for a child's obesity is ridiculous. Maybe. But, a little fear of the law and some good muckraking journalism can go a long way. Look at the changes McDonald's and Wendy's have made since the book Fast Food Nation (2002) and the documentary Supersize Me (2004) hit the scene. Those events coupled with a few attempts to sue McDonald's for contributing to obesity and subsequent health problems have created at least a gentle wind of change (cue The Scorpions).

The U.S. House of Representatives passed the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act in 2004 (also known as the "Cheeseburger Bill"), but it did not receive a Senate vote. Most of these lawsuits against McDonald's and other fast food corporations have been turned down by the courts. But, the bad press and attention have shed light on a lot of the evils and poor nutrition of fast food, and that has prompted at least a minor shift in marketing and food options.

Why I Hate the NBA

I love college basketball. In the winter, I blog about college hoops and the NCAA selection criteria. I especially love the NCAA Tournament selection process and have been called something of an expert (obsessed, crazed maniac?) on the subject by Kyle Whelliston (of ESPN) amongst others. I even went on Louisville's ESPN Radio twice last year to yak about which teams were going to get into the tourney or be left at home.

A spirited discussion with my brother-in-law this past weekend forced me to think about why I do not watch professional basketball, or the league known as "The Association." That's the NBA for us un-hip, stodgy basketball purists. The prompt for this discussion came from a book(1) that I received for my birthday. The first chapter deals with communitarian philosophy and small-town high school basketball, and I find much common ground in Stephen Webb's opening essay entitled, "Building Communities One Gym At A Time: Communitarianism and the Decline of Small-Town Basketball."

Webb states that communitarians believe "that the needs of the community outweigh the individual" and that "communities determine meaning, not individuals." Communitarians also believe that individualism is too shaky a foundation for a solid community. Further, "communities are more than a collection of individual persons, just as a basketball team is more than the sum of its parts." And here lies the problem(s) with the NBA.

1. Individuals are marketed over teams. The NBA does not market teams. It markets players. People watch the NBA because the are "the best players in the world." Maybe. But they are not the best teams. In world events like the Olympics and the World Basketball Championships, these great individuals are getting their butts handed to them regularly by teams from other countries without ANY or very few "great" players. Why? Because Argentina has a great TEAM. Argentina and Puerto Rico are far more than the sum of their parts. The USA usually consists of a collection of great players, but they are far from a team. It is a collection of All-Stars comprised of world class athletes with suspect shooters, mediocre defense, and an collective inability to submit to a team concept. Argentina is forged metal. The US is a bundle of rods loosely bound and easily scattered.

That said, it is perfectly fine if a fan wants to watch great individual players--in fact, I enjoy that, too. However, that is simply good entertainment and not good basketball. The talent of any one player is secondary to the team concept in my basketball values, and in the NBA it is all about LeBron, Kobe, T-Mac, Shaq, D-Wade, etc. The star player is valued and marketed over the team for which he plays. This undermines the team concept and promotes individualism in our culture and in our kids watching basketball. I simply do not like it.

It happens with college hoops, too, but it is pretty rare once we get past Ohio State, North Carolina, Duke and the rest of ESPN's favorites. Quick! Name the best player from George Mason's Final Four team in 2006! Could you name any player? It's hard to do because that was a team and not a marketed product centered on a star player. When they made their run, they were referred to as "George Mason"--a team, and not "Greg Oden and the Ohio State Buckeyes" or "Joakim Noah and the Florida Gators" or "Tyler Hansbrough and the North Carolina Tar Heels." In fact 95% of college basketball are teams. It's the ESPN and media hype machines that turn college stars into one-man shows. In the NBA, it is all about the top players.

2. Ugly basketball. Admittedly, the Phoenix Suns and Dallas Mavericks play wonderful basketball. These teams do adhere more to a team concept, but even at that Steve Nash and Dirk Nowitzki are marketed over the larger team by the league. With a team like Cleveland, it's all LeBron all the time. Lakers? It's Kobe and four other guys. The offense usually works like this:

--Give the ball to Kobe high on the wing
--Set pick for Kobe
--Kobe drives. If the defense stays home, Kobe shoots. If it collapses, Kobe still shoots, or MAYBE he'll kick it to a teammate.

Where are the offensive sets? Where is the pick-and-roll? Where is the artistry? It gets lost in the 6-step Electric Slide that Kobe gets away with without dribbling on his way to the hoop. There are WWE-sanctioned wrestling matches taking place under the hoop. It is ugly basketball.

Watch a collegiate game involving Air Force or Georgetown on offense. It is precision passing and cutting. Watch a collegiate game with Southern Illinois playing picture-perfect, textbook, half-court, in-your-shorts, man-to-man defense. Heck, watch VMI create mass chaos in a turnover-filled free-for-all. These are all done with a team philosophy with all players submitting to a system to achieve a goal. Not so in the NBA for most teams. Kobe IS the system.

3. Overpaid Prima Donnas. I'm sorry. I find it hard to watch guys making millions play a game at half-speed. Guys who gain 30 pounds in the offseasons. Guys with a $7 million per year contract who hold out for a to get $7.8 million. Guys who coast all season and then try to turn it on in the eternally-long playoffs. I can encounter greed anywhere. I do not need to watch it soil a beautiful game. Are college players any better? In a word: YES. But, we must look past the television darlings.

One can point to the elite levels of college basketball and see the same kind of NBAttitude by big-time stars currently playing on college teams. But, again, the basketball played by the top 20 teams on TV every night only represents about 6% of Division I college basketball. Did you know that there are 336 Division I college hoops teams? The overwhelming majority of college ball is played by kids who KNOW that they are not going to the NBA. They are there to get a step ahead in life, to get an education, or at the very least, to play a game they love.

Get past the television and go watch a game at Western Kentucky, Murray State, Tennessee Tech, or Montana State. Nearly every player on the court (save a gem here or there) is playing college ball and it is their last stop. There are no millions waiting for them.

So, connecting this with my fast food post, get out and support the local teams. Is college hoops not your style? Kentucky is a great place for high school hoops, too. Webb states, "Small towns used to be the source of many of America's cultural values and social standards. Residents of small towns did not feel like they were being left behind by the glamour of big cities." So many small towns in Kentucky announce Wal-Mart's coming as it if acknowledges their importance in the world. In fact, what already exists at their local diners, barber shops, churches, and gyms is what defines their character. Wal-Mart only allows them to be like everybody else. Healthy individuality is fostered by strong community.

I know that my WKU Hilltoppers will likely never win an NCAA Championship in hoops. I know that my church will likely never be huge. I know my personal boycott of McDonald's or Wal-Mart will not make a dent. But folks in those communities at WKU, at my church, and at my local places of business might appreciate it.

Our communities are more than the sum of their parts. And that is why I hate the NBA.

1. See especially Stephen H. Webb, "Building Communities One Gym At A Time: Communitarianism and the Decline of Small-Town Basketball" in Jerry L. Walls and Gregory Bassham, Basketball and Philosophy: Thinking Outside the Paint, (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 2007), 7-18.

Not Lovin' It

Anyone who knows me well has to be utterly shocked that I have waited this long to post about fast food. With the other blogs that I read are currently filled with heavy (and quality) discussions on church and faith, I figure it might be a good time for me to indulge in one of my far-too-frequent tirades against those who would control our taste buds, wallets, wastelines, and children if at all possible.

What triggered this was an event in my office yesterday. I dropped by to do a little work with my 5-month-old son in tow. I happened to mention that we were going to a birthday party tonight for a little friend who is turning one year old. The first question from our departmental office associate: "Are you going to McDonald's?" This is not solely about how bad the food is for us. It touches many parts of our lives and serves as an indicator of larger cultural trends.

The long arm of fast food extends FAR past the drive-thru window. Unlike other aspects of popular culture like music, fashion, film, or sports, food culture becomes a part of us physically. We ingest it and it goes into our bloodstream and organs. Listening to Flock of Seagulls in the 1980s may have prompted you to get a weird hair cut and now serve as the butt of jokes at current family reunions or when old pictures are reviewed, but it did not affect your cholesterol, clog your arteries, or make you obese. Overindulgence in fast food culture may have done (and may do) just that.

So, here are some reasons to limit your trips to the drive-thru.

1. It's bad for you. Have you ever cooked a hamburger at home on a grill? Does it look, taste, or feel like a McDonald's hamburger? How does Mickey D's get their burgers to taste the same in Miami, Florida, as in Seattle, Washington? How come they do not shrink when cooked? It is mainly because what you are tasting is not a hamburger at all. What you are tasting are chemicals. Leftover meatish parts from hundreds of slaughtered cattle thrown into a hopper, ground up, and fashioned into a uniform, bun-sized patty. The flavor largely comes from IFF (International Flavors and Fragrances). Eric Schlosser has this to say in his 2002 book Fast Food Nation:

In addition to being the world's largest flavor company, IFF manufactures
the smells of six of the ten best-selling fine perfumes in the United States,
including Estée Lauder's Beautiful, Clinique's Happy, Lancôme's Trésor, and
Calvin Klein's Eternity. It also makes the smells of household products such as
deodorant, dishwashing detergent, bath soap, shampoo, furniture polish, and
floor wax. All these aromas are made through essentially the same process: the
manipulation of volatile chemicals. The basic science behind the scent of your shaving cream is the same as that governing the flavor of your TV dinner.

The taste does not come from just the food. So, not only is it high in calories, fat, trans fat (in some cases), salt, and mostly devoid of nutrition, but the taste comes from the same folks who give Pert Plus it's smell.

2. It hurts local businesses. It's tough enough for small sandwich and coffee shop owners to make it. It's nigh impossible when a fast food restaurant sets up shop across the street or next door. Is Subway cheaper than Bread and Bagels (a local sandwich shop in Bowling Green, KY)? Yes, it is. Which one has higher quality food with better ingredients, an infinitely better atmosphere, works with local farmers, and has a vested interest in Bowling Green? B&B. All that for a dollar more at lunch time! What a bargain!

Do you enjoy drinking coffee and seeing bands at Spencer's? Do you like the excellent sandwiches at B&B? Support them.

Some argue that dollar menus appeal to those with little money. I would argue that they should not be eating at a restaurant at all, and even if they do...

3. It is expensive. One of the greatest tricks of the fast food industry is proclaiming it's economic value, especially through "value menus" or "dollar menus." A sandwich, fries and a drink from the dollar menu will still cost you $3.15 in Kentucky. That works out to a cost of $9.45 per day or roughly $70 per week. I can buy high-quality, organic food for two people with $70 per week. Further, a pound of turkey ($5), 1/2 pound of cheese ($2.50), a loaf of bread ($2), six or seven bananas ($2) and drinking water costs about $11.50--and I'm talking about the good stuff here. One could make at least six meals from these groceries. That's less than $2 per meal.

Fast food is not cheap. I understand that some folks in dire financial straits without a stove at home can enjoy a hot meal at a fast food restaurant for $3-4, and that is understandable. But, if you are reading this blog, this probably does not apply to you.

4. It is not faster. Time yourself. Make a sandwich at home and eat it. Then, one day, drive to a fast food restaurant at lunch time, order, get the food, and eat it. I'll go 10-1 that the homemade lunch is faster. If you have leftovers from dinner the night before, that's even better!
5. It is aimed at kids. "Brand imprinting for later actuation in life." That is what McDonald's brass calls it according to Morgan Spurlock's documentary, Supersize Me. In other words, a seven-year-old has more lifelong buying power than a 70-year-old. So, it's clowns, playgrounds, birthday parties, coloring and legos. It's happy meals gift-wrapped in colorful boxes and pseudo-hamburgers wrapped in fun paper, and it all comes with the latest California Raisin figurine (1980s), beanie baby (1990s), Incredibles (2000s), or (insert new Disney movie here) toy. The nation decried Joe Camel and had him axed, yet Ronald McDonald is something of a hero and more first-graders can correctly identify Ronald than they can common portrayals of Jesus in a picture lineup. To me, Joe Camel and Ronald are two sides of the same coin; they get the hooks of addiction in into kids at an early age. That may sound strong, but no six-year-old brain is a match for the salty, cheesy, sugary, caffeine-laced concoction of the standard McDonald's meal. Heck, it hooks adults fairly easily. Couple that with the toys, parties, playgrounds, and general good-feelings, and the psychological impact is massive.

6. It reduces small-town character. Most people probably care less about this than I do, but it pains me to drive through the South and see that the interstate exits at all of the small towns look the same: Cracker Barrel, McDonald's, Wendy's, Burger King, Subway. Lather, rinse, repeat. I enjoy an occasional blueberry pancake overload at Cracker Barrel as much as the next guy, but basically what CB has done is taken the idea of the hometown country store/restaurant and replicated it on a massive scale. The irony would be funny if not so sad. It is an imitation of the real thing (like say, Teresa's or Judy's Castle or Murray's...).

And that is ultimately the crux of the matter. The continuing explosion of fast food serves as an indicator of a larger trend. It's megachurch for our diets. It's Duke and North Carolina on ESPN, replacing attendance at a local, real, live college basketball game with a slick, marketed product of hype. It's Wal-Mart for our restaurants, enormous and replicating at an alarming rate...actually McDonald's IS inside many Wal-Marts. It's "convenient" and "time-saving" so that we can get on to more important things like hurrying home to watch hours of television so that they can market more fast food to us during the commercial breaks. Eating meals is what sustains our physical body. I think that is pretty important stuff.

The worst of it is that we say that we value education in this country, but the food that is available in schools is some of the worst out there. We spend resources on education and preach the value of it to kids while sending them to a lunchroom filled with low-grade food. Many college campuses' food courts are dominated by fast-food chains. Why are we not educating students on the value of taking care of their bodies? Our intellectual capacity and knowledge suffer if the body that houses them is compromised.

We often cannot see the cumulative effects of what we do to our bodies during our youth until a little later in life. Before we get older or get sick, our time, convenience, and tastes drive our actions. Eventually, when we get sick or break down, THEN we make changes to control our cholesterol, blood pressure, diabetes, weight, etc. How about a little preventative maintenance? Do we want to reform health care in this country? Start at the front end and taking care of ourselves by eating well and exercising. Of course, all of us are going to break down and need medicine at some point and some of us are predisposed to certain ailments, but Americans as a whole can certainly do more on the front end.

We marvel at the soul and human mind that God created in His image. What about the human body that is also made in his image? Why do our bodies look the way that they do? We hear lots about being good stewards with what we are given. Does this not apply to our physical body as well? Or maybe it's more what kinds of abuses we will tolerate. For many Christians, drinking alcohol, even an amount that might be physically beneficial, is frowned upon, but gorging on fried foods, ice cream, or pies on a regular basis is perfectly acceptable. Why?

I am not advocating a workout regimen in order to be a "better Christian." But, maybe we should examine the motivations and reasons for the status of our health both individually and collectively in this country.

I am also not trying to suck the fun out of eating. But, do we think of food as fuel or as fun? Hopefully, it can be a bit of both, but when food becomes a hobby it also becomes a danger.

"Pop" Culture

Where is "the South" in America? If we all drew a border about what is meant by "the South," there would likely be some considerable variation as to what states, cities, and counties were included. But, somehow, nearly everyone knows that when "the South" is referenced, it includes Birmingham but not Phoenix. Somehow, we know that Nashville is in it, but Miami is not. How?

"The South" is a cultural place not bound strictly by geography. Every semester, I have my students fill in a blank map of the Fifty States (sadly, I'd say maybe 5% of college freshmen can do this accurately), then draw a border around "the South." We then have a discussion about the edges of their borders. Some include Texas, some do not. West Virginia is often debated. At what point do you leave "the South" when traveling further south into Florida (let that sink in for minute)? Many students split Kentucky in half, as do I. The cultural South begins to fade out as one drives up I-65 through Elizabethtown, Fort Knox, Shepherdsville, and pushing toward Louisville. There are pockets here and there, but northern Hardin County certainly feels a lot different than Edmonson County.

There also exists a "Coke/Pop" line in this state. When generally referencing carbonated beverages, what is your term of choice? In western Kentucky, people generally say, "Coke." When I make a grocery list, I write "Cokes" on it. That means Dr. Pepper for me and Coca-Cola for my wife. Mountain Dew, Shasta, 7Up, Ski, Ale-8, Sprite--it does not matter. They are all "Cokes!" Now, somewhere just a few miles east of Elizabethtown (a strong "Coke" city), the general term is "Pop." The term "pop" starts to pop up (terrible pun absolutely intended) in Lincoln, Boyle, Mercer, and Washington Counties. While "Coke" is the term of choice in Lexington, one is steeped in "popness" when venturing into mountain counties like Menifee, Magoffin, and Rowan (pronounced "ROWN"). In Prestonsburg or Pikeville, "Coke" towns like Bowling Green or Glasgow seem a million miles away.

Add to that the convergence of dialects in the central Kentucky area, and what we have is a cultural hurricane with the eye somewhere near Elizabethtown.

So, Southerners, travelers, and students of cultural studies, where is the edge of "the South?" Can any good Southerner really say "pop?" If you did not click the in-text links above, please do visit PopvsSoda.com. It's as much fun as the sugary-sweet nectar that it researches. You can even participate in the Pop vs. Soda vs. Coke survey.

*For more, check out J.S. Reed's My Tears Spoiled My Aim. Reed has some GREAT stuff in there on how Americans define the South (the Sweet Tea Line, the "Hell, Yes!" Line, Kudzu, and more).