DECEMBER 1, 2008

Last week, I read an article in Newsweek that was cleverly called “Change You Can Conceive In: Could Euphoric Obama Fans be Sparking a Baby Boom?”

The author writes, “In the hours and days since Obama’s victory, many of his exhilarated supporters have been, shall we say, in the mood for love.  And though it’s too soon to know for sure, experts aren’t ruling out the possibility of an Obama baby boom—the kind of blip in the national birth rate that often follows a seismic event, whether it’s scary (a terrorist attack) or celebratory (the end of World War II).”

Authors William Strauss and Neil Howe have actually co-written a number of books on the subject of generational baby booms, namely, “Generations: The History of America’s Future,” which tells the history of America through a succession of generational biographies circa 1584 to the present.  According to Strauss and Howe, just as history molds generations, so too do generations mold history.  They even claim to have identified a historical pattern in which each generation belongs to one of four archetypes, or ”Turnings,” that repeats sequentially:

Awakening.  During an Awakening, rising adults are driven by inner zeal to become philosophers, religious pundits, and hippies, as they alienate children (who see the adult world becoming more chaotic each day) and older generations alike.  A Nomad (or Reactive) is born during an Awakening.  Nomadic leaders are cunning, hard-to-fool realists, and taciturn warriors who prefer to meet problems and adversaries one-on-one.

Unraveling.  An Unraveling is an era of relative peace and prosperity between an Awakening and a Crisis.  A Hero (or Civic) is born during an Unraveling.  Heroic leaders are considered vigorous and rational institution-builders, entering midlife as aggressive advocates of technological progress, economic prosperity, social harmony, and public optimism.

Crisis.  A Crisis is a decisive era of secular upheaval in which a values regime propels the replacement of the old civic order with a new one.  Wars are waged with apocalyptic finality.  An Artist (or Adaptive) is born during a Crisis.  Artistic leaders are advocates of fairness and the politics of inclusion, and are irrepressible in the wake of failure.

High.  A High is an era between a Crisis and an Awakening.  A Prophet (or Idealist) is born during a High.  Prophetic leaders are cerebral and principled, summoners of human sacrifice, and wagers of righteous wars.  Early in life, few see combat in uniform; late in life, most come to be revered as much for their words as for their deeds.

What I want to know is whether you agree or disagree with Strauss and Howe’s dissection of generational archetypes.  If you agree with them, where do you believe your generation stands now?  If you disagree with them, what would you add or amend to make them more relevant?

Personally, I believe that an Obama baby boom would compose part of a New Adaptive Generation - a collection of “artists” who will be irrepressible in the wake of modern-day failures.  At least, that is what I hope.

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

NOVEMBER 3, 2008

“…and I don’t know what to do, ‘Cause I’ll never be with you.” 

James Blunt obviously craves a meaningful life - and, like many others, he finds it through romance.  For the rest of us, all we really have to do is browse through the “Missed Connections” page on Craigslist.

Last week I read an article on CNN.com entitled “‘I saw you’ romance ads wildly popular.”  The author writes,

Craigslist, Kizmeet.com, ISawYou.com, SubwayCrush.com – these missed-opportunity matchmakers have become a staple of online modern love.  They’ve also become a way for some singles to fantasize about the people they’d like to meet and those they hope will want to meet them.

Mary Robertson, a documentary filmmaker in New York City, isn’t surprised by the appeal of the missed connection.  She’s been working on a film about the phenomenon for almost a year. “What inspires me about these ads is the density of the narrative,” Robertson says.  “The longing, the romance – all in this small space.  They’re like haikus.”

Blogger J. Stone at That’s So Fetch does not feel so inspired.  Stone writes,

Craigslist’s ‘missed connections’ gives soft-spoken people with a self-aware cowardice the chance to reconnect with a girl/guy they saw perusing the cereal aisle or the buxom blond who smiled back at them at the airport. . . . I would really like to know the average IQ of these people.  Instead of posting anonymously on the internet about some chick you missed out on, how about you work on your interpersonal skills?

One could certainly argue that the growing popularity of “missed connections” and “ambient awareness” is actually a reaction to social isolation – the modern American disconnectedness that Robert Putnam explored in his book Bowling Alone.

Indeed, have the internet and accompanying communications technologies actually made us feel lonelier than ever?  More socially inept than ever?  Are we purposely, purposefully - and, yes, perhaps cowardly - “missing the connection” in hopes of a fatalistic reunion on the internet?  Some believe fantasy love is better than real love, after all.

Ultimately, whether you admire or pity people who track down alleged “missed connections,” you have to admit that the appeal of missed-connection Web sites may indicate a shift in how people approach the search for love.

[Comment(1) »] [TrackBack »]

OCTOBER 31, 2008

Besides the friends I’ve met at church, I can only think of a handful of people my age that regularly go to church.  This isn’t surprising: the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life recently found that 44% of Americans have left the religions of their childhoods.   The New York Times also reports that, “Among those born after 1984, about 33 percent attend church on a typical weekend” while 49% of Baby Boomers attend church regularly.  Churches are obviously having a tough time “[e]nticing young people to become regular members of a Christian congregation.”

So what are churches seeking younger members doing about it?  They are plugging into social media and other multi-media outlets to reach their flock.  In addition to having rock music instead of hymns and adding video clips to sermons, churches have begun joining Facebook, MySpace, and MyChurch.org among other sites.  Churches have begun blogging, texting pastors during services, podcasting, and set up message boards.

Most churches I know are all about growing community.  I think it’s interesting that now, community doesn’t have to stay local.  Some churches now show their sermons live online so you can check them out before ever darkening the doorway.  Out-of-towners and troops overseas can feel a part of the community while talking in a forum during service.

I can stay connected to my old church by watching clips posted to YouTube (yes, that’s my pastor and church staff doing the New Kids on the Block… I’d also recommend their Dirty Jobs clip!).  Churches have found a way for prospective members to preview what they can expect, figure out if it’s a community they want to be involved in, and decide if it’s worth their time to even show up.

In what ways has your place of worship updated its methods to keep up with the times and younger members?

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

SEPTEMBER 15, 2008

It may seem like a small thing and insignificant in the eyes of most, but to me it stood out like a sore thumb when I was watching news coverage of McCain’s running mate, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, at the Republican National Convention.  No, it wasn’t the striking resemblance between Palin and Tina Fey, nor was it the minor technical difficulties she encountered during her speech, including a faulty teleprompter.  No, it was the hug.  You know what hug I’m talking about - that McCain-Palin embrace (about 1:22 into the clip), so awkward and uncomfortable I was squirming in my seat.  He leaned in and tried to hug, but couldn’t lift his arms high enough to make a full embrace (due to injuries sustained as a POW in Vietnam) and she kind of, sort of leaned in, but looked away and leaned out at the same time.  Hard to imagine, I know, and even more painful to watch.

I wasn’t the only one who noticed the hug.  Elisabeth Bumiller wrote an article about it in The New York Times.  Bumiller pointed out:

It has been nearly a quarter century since Walter F. Mondale almost never touched Geraldine A. Ferraro in public when they shared the Democratic presidential ticket in 1984, and it is safe to say that times have changed.  Back then, Mr. Mondale had a strict ‘hands off’ policy and did not even put his palm on Ms. Ferraro’s back when the two stood side-by-side and waved with uplifted arms.

But today, with our second co-ed presidential ticket, times have clearly changed. According to an etiquette expert quoted for the NYTarticle, Mr. McCain was right to initiate the hugging as Ms. Palin’s hierarchical superior.  As Letitia Baldrige, former White House social secretary to Jacqueline Kennedy, points out in the article, she finds embarrassing “all this fake hugging that goes on when people greet each other on television,” but goes on to say it’s okay for Mr. McCain and Ms. Palin, “because we accept anything now.”

Personally, my initial reaction to the hug, after the distorted look on my face dissipated, was, why hug?  If McCain’s running mate were a man, they would have shaken hands (or would they?  McCain seems like a hugger, check him out in this receiving line.)  Is it a McCain thing, or a woman thing, and is it okay?  To Baldrige’s point, does anything go these days?

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

SEPTEMBER 3, 2008

Because someone in my office gave birth to a healthy baby boy early yesterday morning, and another one of my colleagues is about to become a new mom later this month, and also in honor of “Labor” Day, I thought it would be appropriate to blog about the crazy Hollywood obsession with getting the very first pictures of newly famous newborns with their famous parents.

People and OK! magazines are usually the first to release full-page spreads of sleeping babies cradled by their proud parents… and thousands of people flock to the newsstands to take a look at the tiny people.  The pictures (and the rights to the pictures) are purchased with very hefty price tags.  This raises a question of ethics.

USA Today featured a story called “The High Cost of Celeb-Baby Fever” in August that focuses on the topic of ethics in the sale and release of baby photos.  The article makes mention of the recent record-breaking $14 million deal between Hello!, a magazine based in Britain that purchased international rights to a 19-page “family album” of pictures of the Jolie-Pitt twins– Vivienne Marcheline and Knox Leon.  Before this deal, the most that was reportedly paid for celebrity baby pictures was $6 million, to Jennifer Lopez and Marc Anthony after the birth of their twins.

Now the ethical questions: will this crazy sum of money (seriously, I can’t picture $14 million bucks in my head) become “the norm” in the world of Hollywood now?  Will other celebrities expect money like this for their pictures?  Also, is it even right to sell your baby’s pictures to the media and essentially objectify them at such a young and vulnerable age? 

Then comes the mental health of the child later upon learning that pictures of them were sold for all of the world to see.  Will the kids resent their parents later? 

Also, where is the money going?  Does the fact that some or all of the money received for pictures may go to charity change things at all?
Everyone has a different opinion about this issue.  I personally think that if the pictures are not sold to the media in the beginning, the paparazzi will go crazy trying to pry their way into the lives of celebrities just to get the first one.  Also, the financial aspect is really not anyone’s business.  If a mother–who spent hours and hours giving birth to a child– decides to take and sell some pictures, that’s her choice.  She clearly is making the best choice she can make for her child and her family.  I also think that charitable donations are an honorable cause and it’s wonderful that a few pictures could benefit the multitude of groups receiving aid because of a few pictures. 

In the end, what does it matter?  We are so saturated with images, celebrity news, drama, and gossip that the pictures will be old news before we know it. 

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

AUGUST 19, 2008

It’s obvious that times are changing– in many ways.  Too many to count, actually.  I know this makes me sound old, but I was born in the 80s, so I’m not that old…yet. 

One thing that I’ve always been fascinated with is people’s strong opinions about cohabitation by couples before marriage (this reminds me a bit of the stay-at-home mom vs. the working mom debate).  Most people I know find themselves leaning strongly towards one end of the spectrum or the other– for varying reasons.  Some think that it’s never appropriate for a couple to live together until marriage; others feel that if it makes sense financially and personally, they should go for it to “test out” the relationship before they leap into something a lot more serious. 

This doesn’t even take into account the barrage of images of celebrity couples (think Heidi Montag and Spencer Pratt) who are choosing to live together before marriage and even start families with no feelings of obligation to wed.  The public may start thinking, if they can do it… why can’t I? 

A July USA Today article called “Living Together Isn’t Just ‘Playing House’ ” really delves into the issue and explains why living together no longer has the negative associations and stereotypes attached to it that it did in days of the past.  According to the article, the number of opposite-sex couples who live together has jumped from less than 1 million 30 years ago to 6.4 million in 2007. 

According to Jay Teachman, a sociology professor at Western Washington University in Bellingham, while old data showed an increased risk of divorce among cohabiting couples, that’s not necessarily true today:

Twenty or 25 years ago, if you were cohabiting and then married them, the marriage was more likely to dissolve and end in divorce…today that’s not the case.  You can cohabit with your spouse and not experience increased risk of divorce.  We’re making these finer distinctions that we didn’t make before.

I personally feel that cohabitation before marriage can be a good thing.  For me, it in part came down to a financial decision.  After I got engaged I realized it was pointless to keep my apartment because I was spending all of my free time at my fiance’s house.  Why continue to pay rent when I knew we’d be living together in a matter of months, anyway? 

My mom wasn’t exactly thrilled about this… but she got over it after she did the math and realized it would only be two months of living together before the date of our wedding.  She raised me with the mindset that cohabitation before marriage is a very bad thing.  Now that I am older and have formed opinions of my own, I stand somewhere in the middle of the cohabitation wars: I appreciate the idea in certain circumstances, but I also respect the perspective of my mother.

What do you think?  Is cohabitation less of a big deal today than it was in the past?  Does the new evidence make you think any differently about the concept?

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

JULY 28, 2008

With over one million copies sold on a wimpy $300 marketing budget, this 256-page tale of human sorrow and divine redemption is undeniably a literary and religious phenomenon.  But how did this happen?

Just over a year after it was originally published in paperback, William P. Young’s The Shack debuted at No. 1 on the New York Times trade paperback fiction best-seller list, and hasn’t budged since June 8.  Currently it is No. 1 on the Borders Group’s trade paperback fiction list, and, until recently, it was No. 1 on the Barnes & Noble trade paperback list.  Motoko Rich at the The New York Times says it’s “the most compelling recent example of how a word-of-mouth phenomenon can explode into a blockbuster when the momentum hits chain bookstores, and the marketing and distribution power of a major commercial publisher is thrown behind it.”

To summarize (but without revealing too much of the story): Early in the novel the young daughter of the protagonist, Mack, is abducted.  Four years later he visits the shack where evidence of the girl’s murder was discovered.  He spends a weekend there in a kind of spiritual therapy session with God, appearing as an African-American woman who calls herself “Papa;” Jesus, who shows up as a Jewish workman; and Sarayu, an indeterminately Asian woman who incarnates the Holy Spirit.

As intriguing is the storyline sounds, I’m not writing this post to encourage or even discourage you from reading The Shack – that’s entirely up to you.  But I’m curious as to why this book has become so popular so fast.  In other words, I want to know how we - the reading public - and even the author himself have turned this book into a best-seller.  I’ll offer five of my ideas:

1. It’s a quick read.  At 256 pages – a whopping 1055 pages fewer than the King James Bible – it’s no wonder that readers are drawn to a shorter rather than longer route to a cathartic encounter with the Christian God.

2. It’s cheap.  Foregoing the more expensive, hardcover version, Windblown Media originally published the book in paperback, making it approachable and affordable to everyone.

3. It’s bought in bulk.  In an effort to spread the word and share the love, many church leaders are asking bookstores for a dozen copies at a time – sometimes even a whole case – to distribute to colleagues, friends and family.  So, whether the book is digested in full or gathers dust on the bedside table, it counts as a sell.

4. It’s controversial.  Christian “feely-types” say it’s life-changing and will bring you closer to God.  Christian “thinking-types” warn that it’s subversive and will make you question the author’s intentions.  Sounds like it’s worth investigating for yourself, right?

5. It’s ambiguous universalism.  Beaner927 at the Closer to Free blog writes, “There were even parts of the book that almost seemed like they were meant JUST for me. . . . I got goosebumps!”  Inverse personalization?  Enough said.

Finally, I believe DHubka at the Thinking About Today blog has the most insightful rumination of all:

Why are so many people’s lives being changed by the book?  What can I take from the book and apply everyday?  I don’t know that there is anything. . .  I think it’s encouraging that this book isn’t life-changing for me, I think it means I’m already well on that path.

To be sure, with 40% of fickle - err, impressionable - American adults having changed their faith at least once since childhood, it’s no wonder The Shack is “changing lives.”  Today, it really doesn’t take much to become someone totally different than you were yesterday.

[Comments(3) »] [TrackBack »]

JULY 7, 2008

Thanks to Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, we all know the Internet is a series of tubes.  But is it also a legal defense tool?

Former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart’s legal opinion on obscenity –“I’ll know it when I see it” – is famous and is often quoted, but it is no longer used as a legal definition.  Because of the 1973 case Miller vs. California, the definition of obscenity now involves an equally ambiguous term: “community standards.”  In other words, if a particular item would offend the standards of a particular community, it is considered obscene.

But how does one determine community standards?  According to The New York Times, an attorney in Florida who is defending the owner of a pornographic website against obscenity charges is taking a unique approach to answering this question.  The attorney, Lawrence Walters, is planning to use Google search records for that community.  His premise is simple: the search terms people actually use in their homes on a daily basis are a far more accurate barometer of community standards than the range of sexually explicit material available for purchase in a particular community, as has been introduced in previous obscenity cases.

To me, the key part of the story is this:

Rather than showing broad availability of sex-related Web sites, [Walters] is trying to show both accessibility and interest in the material within the jurisdiction of the First Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County, where the trial is taking place.

The search data he is using is available through a service called Google Trends. It allows users to compare search trends in a given area, showing, for instance, that residents of Pensacola are more likely to search for sexual terms than some more wholesome ones.

So what do you think?  Is this a valid way to establish “community standards?”  What about when private browsing habits demonstrate a standard that we might be unwilling to admit publicly?  Will this defense work?  And if it does, what’s next… psychological analysis of screen names and avatars?

[Comments(2) »] [TrackBack »]

JUNE 11, 2008

A funny thing happened to me last week: I learned something valuable about 21st century America from a children’s story.  That’s right: the pages I stumbled upon were from none other than the 1960’s classic, Are You My Mother? by P.D. Eastman.  Reading the story as an adult rather than a child, however, I realized that Eastman’s tale was much more than a narrative about a lost bird trying to find his mother.  It was also an account of what happens when one leaves the proverbial “nest” and embarks on an existential quest for one’s true identity.

As childlike as it is profound, Eastman’s classic American tale is a tale about modern America.  Think about it: aren’t 21st century Americans also in search of our mother?  Now more than ever, we are looking for someone or something that will identify us, provide for us, and lead us into the unknown future; and, in doing so, we are also on a quest to find ourselves: who we are as individuals, and not just a nation.  But there’s a problem in 21st century America: we don’t know where to look or who to trust anymore.

To be fair, I didn’t draw this conclusion from Eastman’s text alone; I largely credit an article I read in the May/June 2008 issue of Psychology Today entitled “Dare to Be Yourself” by Karen Wright.  At the core of our quest, Wright claims, is a deep psychological craving for a sense of authenticity.  Not only do we as individuals need it, but America as a whole is starving for it, now more than ever before.  “Americans remain deeply invested in the notion of the authentic self,” says ethicist John Portmann of the University of Virginia. “It’s part of the national consciousness.” 

Our desire to achieve a sense of authenticity and identity has manifested itself in various forms over the past decade in America.  Consider the following cultural trends: 40% of U.S. adults have changed their faith since childhood; the total number of cosmetic procedures performed on Americans has increased 457% since 1997; and antidepressants have become the most commonly prescribed drugs in the United States.  To me, this shows that loyalty is now second to authenticity: we are turning away from the alter because we can no longer withstand being untrue to ourselves and to our faith; we are exploring alternative images that may better reflect our “true” selves; and we are turning to prescription drugs in an attempt to bring ourselves back to our “intended” state of being, to who we believe we really are.  Meanwhile, America’s teens and twentysomethings – our country’s future leaders – are constantly trying out new friends, fashions, hobbies, jobs, lovers, locations, and living arrangements to see what fits and what doesn’t.

So, the question arises: have we come any closer to achieving the sense of authenticity that we desire?

Not really.  In the United States, we’ve found that too much cultural clutter stands between us and our authentic selves.  In other words, we live in an over-saturated society, a cultural environment that is flooded, among other things, with too many options and alternatives.  From having to choose one television channel among 500 available stations, one track on our iPod from a library of 20,000 songs, one cup of Starbucks coffee among 87,000 possible concoctions, the “saturation generation” is overwhelmed with choices, many of which do not reflect who we are at all.

To make matters worse, in our struggle to choose only one among many selections, we are also tasked with having to distinguish what is authentic in America from what, as The Catcher in the Rye’s Holden Caulfield might insist, is “phony” America.  I imagine Caulfield would especially cringe over the phoniness that’s polluted our country of late: embellished social network profiles, fake blogs, and phony online diaries; performance enhancing drugs like anabolic steroids and amphetamines; fabricated memoirs like A Million Little Pieces and Love and Consequences; and even the questionable tear shed by Hillary Clinton.  Amid a clutter of counterfeits, how can we know who to trust?

At TMG, we believe the answers to today’s most challenging questions are often “hidden in plain view,” and the answer to our nation’s identity problem may be no different.  Coincidentally, while the bird in Eastman’s tale searches frantically for his mother, he unwittingly passes right by her.

As Americans, we face a similar challenge: learning to ignore the alluring array of phony distractions that hinder our progress toward achieving authenticity, and, instead, observing those self-evident truths upon which our nation was founded.  Rather than focus on the changes that have taken place in our country within the last ten years, then, perhaps we should shift our gaze to the elements that have withstood the forces of change – the pieces of America that have persevered and, like the bird’s mother, stood by us all along.

[Comments(2) »] [TrackBack »]

MAY 16, 2008

In the 1993 blockbuster sci-fi film Jurassic Park, Jeff Goldblum plays Dr. Ian Malcolm, a chaos mathematician invited to preview an island theme park featuring dinosaurs cloned from pre-historic DNA. Having been taken through an orientation on the wonders the park has to offer, Dr. Malcolm - always the contrarian - opines, “The lack of humility before nature that’s being displayed here, uh… staggers me.”

Fifteen years later, the debate over the consequences of what modern science is capable of doing with DNA and genetic engineering continues. This week, researchers at Cornell University publicized their creation of the first genetically modified human embryo, a feat that was first announced last year at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine annual meeting. Researchers added a fluorescent protein to the embryo in question to enable them to better observe its development and to see if the genetically modified trait would be passed on through subsequent stem cells taken from the embryo. The embryo was classified by the researchers as “unviable” prior to the experiment, and was only allowed to live and develop for a short time.

There are many ethical, moral and philosophical questions that spring up when tinkering with the very building blocks of human life.  While the prospects of embryonic research at times seem very promising, our laws do not define what life is, nor when and where in the gestation process life begins. Without these definitions to guide scientists, the waters can get very muddy. Some believe that a human embryo should have the same rights and protections as you or I, while others think these types of experiments hold the key to better health for all of us.

Unsurprisingly, the controversy over this experiment is growing:

News that scientists have for the first time genetically altered a human embryo is drawing fire from some watchdog groups that say it’s a step toward creating “designer babies.”

But an author of the study says the work was focused on stem cells. He notes that the researchers used an abnormal embryo that could never have developed into a baby anyway.

“None of us wants to make designer babies,” said Dr. Zev Rosenwaks, director of the Center for Reproductive Medicine and Infertility at NewYork-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center.

[snip]

Marcy Darnovsky, associate executive director of the Center for Genetics and Society, said the Cornell scientists were developing techniques that others might use to make genetically modified people, “and they’re doing it without any kind of public debate.”

A London-based group called Human Genetics Alert similarly criticized the work.

But Kathy Hudson, director of the Genetics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C., said she’s not troubled by the work. She said the idea of successfully modifying babies by inserting genes remains a technically daunting challenge.

“We’re not even close to having that technology in hand to be able to do it right,” she said, and it would be ethically unacceptable to try it when it’s unsafe.

While researchers say that they don’t want to create designer babies, it seems to me that they are laying the foundation for that very thing. Should we feel comfortable with that? What guidelines should be put in place to determine what the best practices are in this uncharted new area?

Whenever I read something like this, the first question that comes to my mind is this: just because we can do it, does it also mean we should?

[Comments(2) »] [TrackBack »]