Playing For Change

Brooke was listening to Morning Edition this morning and heard this article about “Playing For Change.”

The general premise is that Mark Johnson, a producer in California, got this crazy idea to record street musicians performing well-known songs (like “Stand By Me,” above). The hook of this is that he (and his crew) traveled the world and recorded other street musicians singing/performing the same song, and then edited them together.

Really, it’s a neat idea and it gets you thinking about how a simple thing like music can bring people of completely different cultures, creeds and colors together like never before. The video above went viral on YouTube awhile back, but there are 6 other episodes on the website. They also have a CD/DVD available for purchase.

A tele-what?

So, I was listening to an interesting “On Point With Tom Ashbrook” from NPR during my various runnings around tonight whilst they discussed young people in the digital age. They were largely talking about how youth today, whether in middle school or college are constantly “connected” via text messaging, e-mail, Facebook and IM. The discussion was sparked by a recent study saying that having your kids on the internet all the time may not be a bad thing, necessarily (a link to the study is on the On Point website).

It didn’t really get me thinking about anything specific, but a little about my history with similar forms of “connectedness.” My oldest IM name is alinsenb17…which means I started it when I was 17…which means that I will have been using AIM for a decade next year (eeesh!). Before that, I was already e-mailing “pen pals” of sorts and using another chat program, ICQ, that I don’t really use anymore (if I remember right, I was using ICQ for a good amount of time before AIM, meaning that I’ve actually been IMming for longer than 10 years already).

It’s also rather crazy just how many people are online at a given time, and generally available to “chat.” At the time of this writing (9:00 PM CST), there are 14 people on my Facebook Chat, 12 on Google Chat, 2 on MSN Messenger, and 7 on AIM. Nice way to stay connected, and still kinda crazy that all these people still use IM services when text messaging has largely taken over for instant messaging via computer. There was a time, back in my first year at Truman, where I’d have 9 AIM windows open at one time, with 9 separate conversations going at once…which was (obviously) difficult to manage.

I guess the part that really intrigues me about this is that I’ve been doing IM for 10 years, and e-mail for a little longer, and there are still people that don’t have computers, let alone an e-mail account, let alone an IM account of some form. I realize it’s a “different generation,” but I wonder how it’ll all, eventually, equal out. We’re already starting to see some integration of all these protocols, where one can couple their Facebook status with text messaging, or both of those with their Twitter account (which is a separate beast entirely).

Will it come to a point where all of these separate forms of communication (social networking, text messaging, e-mail, IM, voice/video chat) are all integrated into a single protocol? Where someone can communicate with someone else with the touch of a button?

Oh wait…that’s called a “telephone“…

You know it’s bad when a blind guy is better than you…

I heard this mentioned on NPR this morning…they like mentioning these 30 sec. funny stories before the regular news starts…and one of them before 8:30 am mentioned a guy in Alta, IA that bowled a perfect game on Saturday night. This wouldn’t normally be that big a deal, but he’s 78 and legally blind – apparently, he could only see the ball when he picked it up.

Yeah…my high score is still only, like, 160…grrrrrrrr…

You know it's bad when a blind guy is better than you…

I heard this mentioned on NPR this morning…they like mentioning these 30 sec. funny stories before the regular news starts…and one of them before 8:30 am mentioned a guy in Alta, IA that bowled a perfect game on Saturday night. This wouldn’t normally be that big a deal, but he’s 78 and legally blind – apparently, he could only see the ball when he picked it up.

Yeah…my high score is still only, like, 160…grrrrrrrr…

“Staying The Course”

So, the response to the tragedy at Virginia Tech leaves me rather annoyed… More specifically, a few things: all the “today we’re all Hokies” Profile pictures on Facebook last week, and the wearing of VT’s colors last Friday.

It just seems like the American public, rather than expressing sympathies and making a difference, they jumped into a “me too” response (where, rather than doing something about it, they just change a profile picture or wear a different color that day). [Note: I’m over-generalizing with that last part, and I certainly realize that not everyone is guilty, but it is a somewhat disturbing trend amongst many…] Sure, it was a terrible event that few will forget in the near future, but what really resulted from it? What have we learned from it? What will change to make sure it never happens again?

That’s the part that gets me. Let’s think about Hurricane Katrina. This was another tragic event that occurred in August of 2005. Last week on NPR, they were in New Orleans talking about how things have been shaping up recently. There are still people in trailers, there is crime all over the place, and most of the promised FEMA funds haven’t arrived. Katrina was in the news for weeks, and lots of people went down to help, and lots of donations were sent. While many religious and campus organizations still spend their spring breaks down there, believe you me, the response is “attenuated”… What about the tsunami in Southeast Asia? Lots of people were left homeless and lots of money was sent initially. What about now? When was the last time you heard a report about that? What about the 140 people that died in Iraq the day after the VT shootings that went mostly unnoticed?

I guess I’m just trying to make sense of it all… It seems silly to me that we make ourselves feel better by trying to make ourselves a part of someone else’s tragedy, when we would all be better served by making a difference in our own lives and our own relationships to make sure the same mistakes aren’t made.

A week later, the VT tragedy is only barely in the news. They’ve [read: news organizations] all moved on already. They were so important last week – why not this week? What has changed?

Very little, and that’s the problem. Much like Katrina, the tsunami, Iraq and Columbine, we shouldn’t be surprised when this happens again.

"Staying The Course"

So, the response to the tragedy at Virginia Tech leaves me rather annoyed… More specifically, a few things: all the “today we’re all Hokies” Profile pictures on Facebook last week, and the wearing of VT’s colors last Friday.

It just seems like the American public, rather than expressing sympathies and making a difference, they jumped into a “me too” response (where, rather than doing something about it, they just change a profile picture or wear a different color that day). [Note: I’m over-generalizing with that last part, and I certainly realize that not everyone is guilty, but it is a somewhat disturbing trend amongst many…] Sure, it was a terrible event that few will forget in the near future, but what really resulted from it? What have we learned from it? What will change to make sure it never happens again?

That’s the part that gets me. Let’s think about Hurricane Katrina. This was another tragic event that occurred in August of 2005. Last week on NPR, they were in New Orleans talking about how things have been shaping up recently. There are still people in trailers, there is crime all over the place, and most of the promised FEMA funds haven’t arrived. Katrina was in the news for weeks, and lots of people went down to help, and lots of donations were sent. While many religious and campus organizations still spend their spring breaks down there, believe you me, the response is “attenuated”… What about the tsunami in Southeast Asia? Lots of people were left homeless and lots of money was sent initially. What about now? When was the last time you heard a report about that? What about the 140 people that died in Iraq the day after the VT shootings that went mostly unnoticed?

I guess I’m just trying to make sense of it all… It seems silly to me that we make ourselves feel better by trying to make ourselves a part of someone else’s tragedy, when we would all be better served by making a difference in our own lives and our own relationships to make sure the same mistakes aren’t made.

A week later, the VT tragedy is only barely in the news. They’ve [read: news organizations] all moved on already. They were so important last week – why not this week? What has changed?

Very little, and that’s the problem. Much like Katrina, the tsunami, Iraq and Columbine, we shouldn’t be surprised when this happens again.

MLK for today's world…and for whom?

So, I regularly listen to the On Point radio broadcast on NPR (yeah, I’m that dorky…) via podcast, and yesterday, they were talking about Martin Luther King, Jr…  More specifically, they were discussing whether he would be with today’s Republicans or today’s Democrats.  From the summary:

“King personified Christian activism in politics, they say — and so do we. King said judge not by the color of skin but by the quality of character, they say — when they oppose affirmative action. King did not speak up for gay marriage, they say — and conservatives don’t either.  Progressives are appalled”

The idea is that both sides want to claim him for themselves.  For example, the Conservatives say that because King was a preacher, he’d be against gay marriage.  Liberals say that because he was for equality in all things, he would be more sympathetic to their cause.  The Conservatives also use his classic “I Have A Dream” speech to say that King wanted full equality in the workplace, so he would be against Affirmative Action (because that entire program goes against equality), while the Liberals say that sure, King was for equality, but he would want Affirmative Action to stay in place until equality was assured (which it obviously isn’t, yet).

At the link above, you can find quotes from the show from the people interviewed, as well as a recording of the 40 min. broadcast.  Rather interesting to hear…

The thing that really got me, though, is the parallels I see with Christianity in general.  These people were basing arguments on his singular speech.  What do we, as Christians, do with Jesus?  Don’t we try to fit our faiths, no matter what they are, on reported events and sayings from 2000 years ago?  I mean, Dr. King died less than a century ago and people are already claiming that he believed things to suit their needs!

Perhaps we need to step back and take a different perspective on fitting our idols into a proverbial “box.”  If we can’t figure out what a person would believe in today’s context, when they’ve only been gone for 50 years, how can we fit something from 2000 years ago into today’s world?

MLK for today’s world…and for whom?

So, I regularly listen to the On Point radio broadcast on NPR (yeah, I’m that dorky…) via podcast, and yesterday, they were talking about Martin Luther King, Jr…  More specifically, they were discussing whether he would be with today’s Republicans or today’s Democrats.  From the summary:

“King personified Christian activism in politics, they say — and so do we. King said judge not by the color of skin but by the quality of character, they say — when they oppose affirmative action. King did not speak up for gay marriage, they say — and conservatives don’t either.  Progressives are appalled”

The idea is that both sides want to claim him for themselves.  For example, the Conservatives say that because King was a preacher, he’d be against gay marriage.  Liberals say that because he was for equality in all things, he would be more sympathetic to their cause.  The Conservatives also use his classic “I Have A Dream” speech to say that King wanted full equality in the workplace, so he would be against Affirmative Action (because that entire program goes against equality), while the Liberals say that sure, King was for equality, but he would want Affirmative Action to stay in place until equality was assured (which it obviously isn’t, yet).

At the link above, you can find quotes from the show from the people interviewed, as well as a recording of the 40 min. broadcast.  Rather interesting to hear…

The thing that really got me, though, is the parallels I see with Christianity in general.  These people were basing arguments on his singular speech.  What do we, as Christians, do with Jesus?  Don’t we try to fit our faiths, no matter what they are, on reported events and sayings from 2000 years ago?  I mean, Dr. King died less than a century ago and people are already claiming that he believed things to suit their needs!

Perhaps we need to step back and take a different perspective on fitting our idols into a proverbial “box.”  If we can’t figure out what a person would believe in today’s context, when they’ve only been gone for 50 years, how can we fit something from 2000 years ago into today’s world?

Still Here

Yes, I’m still here, I just haven’t had much to say that Andy hasn’t already! Of course, this is from the PHC website:

John the farmer was in the fertilized egg business. He had several hundred young layers (hens), called “pullets”, and ten roosters, whose job it was to fertilize the eggs (for you city folks). The farmer kept records and any rooster that didn’t perform went into the soup pot and was replaced. That took an awful lot of his time, so he bought a set of tiny bells and attached them to his roosters. Each bell had a different tone so John could tell from a distance, which rooster was performing. Now he could sit on the porch and fill out an efficiency report simply by listening to the bells.

The farmer’s favorite rooster was old Butch, and a very fine specimen he was, too. But on this particular morning John noticed old Butch’s bell hadn’t rung at all! John went to investigate. The other roosters were chasing pullets, bells-a-ringing. The pullets, hearing the roosters coming, would run for cover. But to Farmer John’s amazement, old Butch had his bell in his beak, so it couldn’t ring. He’d sneak up on a pullet, do his job and walk on to the next one. John was so proud of old Butch, he entered him in the Renfrew County Fair and he became an overnight sensation among the judges.

The result… The judges not only awarded old Butch the No Bell Piece Prize but they also awarded him the Pulletsurprise as well. Clearly old Butch was a politician in the making: who else but a politician could figure out how to win two of the most highly coveted awards on our planet by being the best at sneaking up on the populace and screwing them when they weren’t paying attention.”

Submitting Sheep vs Doubting Sheep

So, I listened to an On Point podcast from NPR, where Tom Ashbrook was interviewing Andrew Sullivan, author of “The Conservative Soul.” Sullivan, an Englishman, came over to the US years ago and supported Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan-era Conservativism, not the form that has been in politics more recently (i.e. small government, less control over the people vs big government, big spending, more control over liberties). The crazy thing is that he said that Bill Clinton was actually more of a conservative than the people in power now (i.e. balanced budget, smaller government). More specifically, something Sullivan said struck me as interesting:

“The capacity to doubt yourself, to question yourself, is a critical element of Western liberty. My view is that it’s also a critical part of faith. If you’ve never doubted something, you’ve never really believed it. You’ve just submitted to it. You haven’t allowed yourself to question something, and faith for me is a journey between doubt and faith. It’s a dialogue within yourself and with others as to what the truth is. It isn’t this acceptance of the truth and then the imposition of it on the world, and the claim that God justifies everything.”

Most key to that quotation is: “If you’ve never doubted something, you’ve never really believed it. You’ve just submitted to it.” I think this is a really important point that isn’t made very often, or that many people don’t connect with. You can’t simply believe something because you were told to. You can’t simply listen to Pat Robertson and James Dobson and believe that they’re infallible (even though they both think that they are). That goes for both sides of the political spectrum.

I guess I’m just thinking that, in today’s day and age, we tend to go along with things without questioning them. Without questioning ourselves. I think even some of us believe that we must be unquestioning of faith in God (or any other religious belief), in believing that His words are infallible.

But we forget that doubt and faith are completely intertwined. I think Sullivan made a very good, and interesting, point in putting it the way he did. We must always question our beliefs, whether in faith or politics. We must not abide with listening to campaign ads without looking at the evidence ourselves. We must not think that just because my church endorses a political ideology or policy, it’s correct. We must have doubt before we can believe.

There’s a very big difference between being a simple follower, and being an active believer.