Of vampires and zombies

There has been a longstanding difference in the nerd community about what is better - zombies or vampires. It has recently become a pop-culture debate as well. I'm here to tell you the definitive answer is, of course, the zombie. I'll give you the objective truth behind this.

Vampires

The original Vampire stories had an analog in patron systems where the wealthy rulers and aristocrats would tax the impoverished peasants into virtual slavery. This changed with the times into a true class warfare scenario where the story involves the masses rising up against the bourgeois class bleeding them dry, and kill their oppressor. But in the 20th Century the vampire myth became romanticized. No longer was the vampire an object of fear, but now they became a romantic troubled soul aching for meaning in an immortal life, and love with humanity that is dying around them, while at the same time feeding their lusts with abandon. The vampire changed from class warfare to a morality tale about feeding lusts. The Twilight series makes this most explicit comparing the bloodthirst of the vampire to the sexual cravings of post-pubescent adolescents.

The mythology even changed so much it incorporated the werewolf mythology (sometimes called the Lycans). This conflict between immortal races really doesn't have much analog in our real life, and serves no point whatsoever besides sometimes adding adventure into an otherwise romantic story of vampire love.

Werewolves

The werewolf myth also comes from the days of vampire stories, but always separate. The wolf-man creature has two analogs: The transformation from tempered human to wild beast correlates to the suppression of the evil within man by the domestication of education, religion, and society; and, the wolf-man is the outcast of society, maybe the deformed, the immigrant, gypsy, or otherwise. In the 20th Century the werewolf has kept most of the characteristics, only the "evil side" that emerges is often, like with vampires, a sexual urging. This story is told two ways: we must constantly suppress our carnal self (interestingly this is also told in a Vampire story with Blade who is a half-vampire who fights his own bloodthirst), or that we should embrace our cravings to not lie to ourselves about our true feelings.

Zombies

Zombies don't have a storied history like vampires do, really only getting their own mythology in mid-century 1900s. The zombie is the ultimate cultural corollary for many reasons, and it is because the zombie mythology is so flexible you can tell any moral tale (or none at all if you want) using human nature reconstructed to its basic parts (feeding, violence, sex). The zombie has been told different ways: sometimes they are dead risen, sometimes they are simply infected with a virus and are still living though higher thinking is removed. Sometimes they represent rampant consumerism, sometimes it's the effects of corporate greed, pollution, military experiments, or even nature fighting back. But the zombie archetype can be extended to almost any social wrong.

I can see how the zombie can be an analog for poverty. Take away every safety net, homes, food, and society can turn into a place where violence reigns (think Somalia). We can even make a Zombie Christmas movie where all of the mindless zombies put of trees in their homes, and head off to the shopping centers. The possibilities are endless, and timely.

Even the reaction to a zombie infestation can be used to tell a story, like in 28 Days Later and 28 Weeks Later. Zombies can represent the ghetto that rich consumer culture has stuffed the poor minorities into.

Clearly zombies are the ultimate storytelling device for telling tales of real life struggle, oppression, love, hate, and survival. You really can't go wrong.

And I suppose this debate can come to a close now.

Mr. Obama's heroes speak out

It's been a while since I've posted anything. This video moved me to tears, especially the part where Rev. King pointed out the hypocrisy of our society.

The numbers do lie

This morning on Fox Opinion Channel (d.b.a. Fox News Channel) Megyn Kelly was interviewing Scott Rasmussen of Rasmussen Reports concerning the latest poll suggesting 66% of our country is angry at government policies.

Because Fox has no journalistic integrity, this of course means that the majority of Americans agree with the Fox opinion, that we all are against government bailouts of the banks, against health care reform, and against the economic recovery act. Of course this is clearly ridiculous because the majority of the people I interact with on a daily basis (which is mostly those at work) have very different opinions than Fox, and yet they would fall within the 66% number.

You see, because these polls don't track the specific opinions of people, just broad categories.

This same poll shows 44% of Democrats are angry, and 90% of Republicans. Who's willing to bet the majority of Democrats actually favor health care reform, and favor enacting stricter regulation over the financial sector?

You see, I would predict the majority of Democrats are angry at their party for not having the backbone to stand up to the Republican minority and pass a strong progressive agenda without watering it down for a party who isn't going to vote for it regardless. (Example: The recovery act was mostly tax cuts, thanks to Republican pressure, yet the vast majority of Republicans didn't vote for the bill.)

I'm willing to predict the majority of Republicans are angry at their party for failing to provide leadership. They want a strong leader like they had in 1994 when the Republican minority controlled the agenda and became the majority two years later. They're angry because they are opposing the Democrats without offering an alternative. (Example: The so-called Budget To Nowhere put forth by the Republicans which contained no numbers.)

And then they point to the numbers on health care reform with "only" 43% favoring the current reform plan. I may be crazy, but I'm guessing the 43% are the more moderates, and the larger 56% number is probably split down the middle by those against any health reform, and those who want a more comprehensive package. Based on previous polls it would actually suggest the majority of those opposing the current plan actually support more government intervention in medical care, not less. The latest poll shows 78% of respondents say all Americans should have access to the same plan Congress has (a public option?).

You see, data is just data and holds no meaning or purpose behind it. It is manipulated by everyone to prove their own points, and it just leads to further argument and division. I'm not against data, I'm against the ridiculousness of so many otherwise rational people who hold so fast to their political persuasions the same way they support their favorite sports teams no matter how bad they are.

Don't go on TV and tell people what their opinion should be. Dialog and understanding needs to happen. I bet most of the polled respondents don't actually know what the legislation is, so their anger is coming from some ethereal field of battle. Can't we just talk to each other in rational, civilized ways?

Tongues gone wild

What exactly are you trying to prove? I find it difficult to believe that is actually how you talk with people. Do you talk to your friends like that?

Tell me, if I came into your home and very aggressively told you about the mistakes you've made and how the problems in your life are God teaching you a lesson and you need to learn this lesson to move forward in life, how would you feel?

I'm venting. I didn't mean to vent but it happened. I started thinking and it's coming out now. I just don't think we understand the words we use when we're trying to reach out to some people.

There's a lot of pressure in these situations to act holy, or godly, or like we have a fix for their lives. When we're ministering to the houseless, the drug addicts, and the impoverished. We're always trying to think of some sentence that might connect with their lives somehow and make them realize their utter depravity and total dependence on the Lord.

But you can't just go into someone's home - or lack thereof - and tell them their story. You have to join in their story, become a part of it. You have to listen and empathize.

You can't just go in there and spout of answers to all their problems, and guilt trip them into finding a job. You can't tell them it's easy to get a job if only you try hard enough. And please don't tell them they're lunatics because they try the same thing every day hoping for different results.

Would you talk to your friend like this? No! Then why would you tell a stranger these things? They don't know you, and more importantly you don't know them. It means nothing to them, but it might be offensive. And it's not the offensive Gospel, it's just being rude.

Turn the page...

And why are you judging people who come out to help? Do you really think people have to be perfect before they can sit with houseless friends for dinner? Maybe they'll be changed in the process. Maybe they'll learn something. Where is your patience?

I can't believe how hypocritical you are. You're judging them for being there and doing things wrong, but you haven't been there in over a month and a half. You're so high and mighty. Hypocrite!

Maybe it's not just about the poor. Maybe it's also about the wealthy you're ministering with. Maybe we're all in this together, and it's messy. There is no right way. Everyone is different. Their needs are different. Their personalities are different. There isn't a formula for relationships.

Love isn't color by number.

God is good

In our over-privileged American congregations, stuffed to the brim with wealthy white people, we use an interesting language some call "Christianese."

You see, I've been thinking about how we reach out to the under-privileged, marginalized communities. I was specifically thinking about what I'm planning on doing tonight. You see a friend of mine has been running a ministry to help empower the poverty stricken neighborhoods in our area, and enlists the support of local congregations to do some of the work. Often times they come in and do their day's work, pat themselves on the back, and congratulate themselves at Sunday mass about what a great work they've done.

A few months ago he started taking a few people to a local park where houseless people tend to congregate, barbecuing some food and holding service in the open. The small group has continued to grow, and for the most part these people are so very eager to serve those below their station.

The only problem is often times we don't know how to act. Some of this hubris is subconscious so that we think to ourselves what a great thing we are doing bestowing our very presence with people in need. How great it is to share Jesus with the hungry.

But it's useless to share Jesus with someone when you don't share yourself!

Friendships are difficult to develop when we have lopsided relationships like this. When we have a benefactor and beneficiary, the relationship isn't a mutual kinship very often. It takes more than a few words and a couple hours to care for someone deeply.

I'm sitting here thinking about how to form interactions that are meaningful to someone in need in 10 seconds or less. (Yes, I'm using the method of a salesman to sell empathy.) I'm playing scenarios over in my head about how these interactions would play out, and feeling how one might respond to any of them - personally, not outwardly. I ask the question, "What has God done in your life lately?"

Christianese.

How does one respond to this when you're living on the street? Under the steeple you might respond, "I got a raise at work; God is so good!" or "I heard a new Tomlin song that really touched me." But under the blistering sun, would this response be, "I found a place with shade that's pretty isolated when I need to be alone, but not too far from the discount grocer," or possibly, "I finally got to the free clinic where they put me on antibiotics for the infection in my foot."

But for some people you might not even get this. You might get, "After I got back from Iraq I was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, my wife kicked me out, and I'm so depressed I became and alcoholic, lost my job, and I've been on the streets for four months. Proprietors and police officers are always pestering me. I get dirty looks from women in SUVs with 'support our troops' stickers on the back. And they sit me in the back of the church."

And what promises can you give them? In our big congregations we often hear promises like, "You life will be more complete with Jesus," and "Those worries of the past will melt away when you give your life to the Lord." But when we're talking to our houseless neighbors their situation will pretty much be the same on Thursday as it was on Monday.

There is a large disparity between the two experiences. If we truly seek justice we would work, as a whole, to mitigate the gulf between our two worlds, drawing those in need into our fellowship while moving into their lives as well.

Terrorism Week

I was reading through the latest issue of Time when I found this article that caught my attention: Media Freak-outs: Every Week Is Shark Week.

I love Shark Week. I don't actually watch much, but there is a general buzz around when Shark Week is on, and for the past two years the office played the Shark Week game online called Sharkrunners. So this grabbed my attention. The first line of the article pulled me in even further:

Tracy Jordan (Tracy Morgan) on 30 Rock once sagely declared, "Live every week like it's Shark Week!"

I love Tracy Morgan's wacky humor. So I read on. And it's a good article so you should read it too.

The article goes on to tell the story of the summer of 2001 when a shark attack off the coast of Florida riveted the country to endless news stories of killer sharks, and Larry King even asked, "Are sharks rebelling?" By the end of the summer there were fewer attacks than the previous year.

So why are we so attracted to these sensational stories, and why are we so frightened of something that will never happen to us in a million years (mathematically)?

Ideally, the media should help us place our worries in perspective. But often they encourage the disaster mentality by focusing on the trendy menace--the sleeper cell, the Obama-conspiracy e-mails, the pandemic, the shark--jumping on hot-button distractions and rushing to label every new crisis the worst ever.

You are more likely to die by drowning or from melanoma induced by the beach sun. But that one-in-a-million chance of being done in by a primeval predator from the murky depths--that's the threat with teeth.

As I read this article I was more and more reminded of another article I read. I've been stewing over it the past few days, and now I'm blogging. "Peanuts Kill More Americans Than Terrorists."

That's right, we're obsessed with terrorism. We love terrorism because it frightens us, and it is an exotic threat that is so rare you have a much greater chance of drowning in a swimming pool than by being harmed by a terrorist.

The Cato Institute put out an article in 2004 called A False Sense
of Insecurity? (which I also recommend reading) explaining how "Even with the September 11 attacks included in the count, the number of Americans killed by international terrorism since the late 1960s (which is when the State Department began counting) is about the same as the number of Americans killed over the same period by lightning, accident-causing deer, or severe allergic reaction to peanuts." (Of course we also freaked out about peanuts too.)

What's so bad about our intense focus on terrorism is we're giving the terrorists exactly what they want, legitimacy.

In the oft-repeated observation of terrorism expert Brian Jenkins, "Terrorists want a lot of people watching, not a lot of people dead." ... Frantz Fanon, the 20th century revolutionary, contended that "the aim of terrorism is to terrify." If that is so, terrorists can be defeated simply by not becoming terrified — that is, anything that enhances fear effectively gives in to them.

Terrorists are little people with no voice, and little to no participation in the world's affairs. When they use these tactics and the world changes their focus, changes the way they operate, they have not just hijacked a plane, they've hijacked a whole country. They're altered the discourse, and now they're at the center of policy, instead of in their caves and huts.

And we as a nation took these fears and ran with it. We had discussions about the terrorist's next move, predicting exotic and strange new ways in which terrorists would attack. The head of the Department of Homeland Security told us all to "Be very afraid." And a huge portion of our nation's industrial output is dedicated to defeat these tiny little men with tiny ideas, and tiny strategies.

A suicide vest is a megaphone. The media is a soapbox.

We're still in the Cold War

The Cold War existing because two super powers were building massive nuclear arms. Each power also helped their respective allies with their own nuclear arms (South Africa, Great Britain, etc). There was no imminent threat war for any normal cause. The threat stemmed from the fact that nuclear weapons existed, and each state felt threatened simply by the existence of these weapons programs. After all, why build weapons if you have no reason to use them?

In the past, weapons development always resulted from war, and in the midst of that war to adapt to the changing battlefield to gain an advantage over the enemy. Part of a war is development of weapons. Better weapons than the enemy. Stronger, faster, more reliable ways to engage in war.

The Cold War was a war without battles. We fought over who had the advantage on the battlefield even when we didn't have a battlefield.

But the point I'm getting at is that nations feel threatened when another nation is stockpiling weapons, building up their armies and navies, and positioning them against other states. And for good reason.

In the past when a nation was building up their armies they invariably went to war. Perhaps to justify the build up, or maybe because of hubris over their great strength. For example, Germany built up a strong, mechanized military leading up to their invasion of Poland and Czechoslovakia. The Allies had to respond in the midst of war to build up their own mechanized forces to match their abilities.

We see this still today. We see nations nervous of other nations arms programs. Pakistan built their nuclear program because India has one. Iran may be seeking nuclear weapons because Israel has some. Russia is protesting the missile systems the US have been installing around their borders.

But the whole world is nervous because the USA continues to build up its military strength year after year, developing newer, more awesome weapons of mass destruction. Inventing new ways to kill people all over the world. We have 24 hour surveillance of every corner of the globe, and a military presence in every theater. They look at us and ask themselves why we have so much power. We call it a defense force but we're so far away from our borders. We're in their country.

So the Cold War continues. People feel threatened by the state with a massive military presence.

John Howard Yoder said this:

Christians whose loyalty to the Prince of Peace puts them out of step with today's nationalistic world ... are not unrealistic dreamers who think that by their objections all wars will end. The unrealistic dreamers are rather the soldiers who think that they can put an end to wars by preparing for just one more. ... Christians love their enemies not because they think their enemies are wonderful people, nor because they believe that love is sure to conquer those enemies. ... The Christian loves his or her enemies because God does, and God commands His followers to do so; that is the only reason, and that is enough.

(link)