I’m glad to see that the Advent Conspiracy is gaining traction, as seen in this article in Time. Carey and I were very influenced by their materials and arguments last year so that we have changed our Christmas practices, especially in our gift-giving. I love their emphasis on freeing ourselves from consumerist obligations we put on ourselves so that we can freely worship the incarnate God, Jesus, and love others with presence as well as give money to help others in need. I am thankful for their creativity, simple message, and reminder that this season is about worship. They have convinced us to adopt new traditions.

Here is this year’s video from Advent Conspiracy:

Here is last year’s video that helped convict and convince us:

I read the text from President Obama’s acceptance speech for his Nobel Peace Prize. When he talks about Reinhold Niebuhr being a major influence on his thought, he isn’t kidding. Obama’s speech was full of a Niebuhrian sense of irony. Take for example, this excerpt:

I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King said in this same ceremony years ago – “Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones.” As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King’s life’s work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there is nothing weak – nothing passive – nothing naïve – in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince Al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism – it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

What are peoples’ thoughts about Obama’s speech and his Niebuhrian description of working toward peace all the while maintaining the necessity to use force as a means to achieve that peace? I’m still sorting everything out, but I was especially grateful for his referring to Just War theory. How I hope that theory regains traction in today’s world, if we are to engage in violence. For a couple of good introductions to Reinhold Niebuhr’s thought, check out these programs from Speaking of Faith: “Moral Man and Immoral Society: The Public Theology of Reinhold Niebuhr,” and “Obama’s Theologian.”

This past decade I realized how much I love post-apocalyptic and dystopian stories, which surprised me. I did not grow up on Mad Max movies, nor did my parents read 1984 to me as a child, which is a good thing. In some Christian circles, these genres are extremely popular, but I have never held the eschatological views that led to the Left Behind novels. I have not really explored why I love these kinds of stories, yet I find myself drawn to them. Perhaps it is the cautionary aspect of these tales or that they play on my more bleak and cynical views of humanity and remind me that hope is often a hard-won battle. Whatever the reason, I spent a good portion of the decade catching up on some of the classics of the genres like A Canticle for Leibowitz, 12 Monkeys, Brazil, Fahrenheit 451, The City of Lost Children, etc. It may seem like a cheat to include both genres, but they often bleed into one another. Sometimes dystopias emerge after an apocalyptic event, such as the case in Children of Men, or dystopian societies precede the apocalyptic event like in Fahrenheit 451.

1. The Road by Cormac McCarthy—By far the most harrowing post-apocalyptic story I have ever encountered. It is especially frightening because it feels like it could happen, even though we do not find out with certainty what caused the world to be cold and covered in ash. I had not previously considered how many of the stories in this genre play it safe. McCarthy, in his usual fashion, does not flinch from the totality of violence. Danger lurks everywhere from people not finding food to eat to hiding from other people so that they will not be eaten. And yet, at the heart of this novel is a love story between a father and son. I recently reread the novel and was again blown away by its power and yes, its beauty.


2. WALL-E directed by Andrew Stanton—I never thought that the apocalypse could be heartwarming, but this film reminds us of the gift of wonder even in the midst of devastation. It also reminds us to turn off the machines once in a while, go outside, and enjoy the trees, the grass, and the pizza plants.


3. Children of Men directed by Alfonso Cuarón—What would drive people to despair? How about no hope for a future. What would a future devoid of a future look like? One without children. Cuarón’s film adapted from the novel—which I have not read—shows humanity struggling to hang on in the midst of a global infertility epidemic. In the midst of panic, an authoritarian dystopia emerges on the isle of Britain that is afraid of all foreigners. A powerful critique of fear, nihilism, and xenophobia using some of the most subtle and technically proficient special effects used in contemporary cinema.


4. Hot Fuzz directed by Edgar Wright—Dystopias can be funny. Really funny. Wright’s genre-bending homage and parody of cop, buddy, and detective films shows us that dystopias can look clean and ordered—it is all about an authoritarian power afraid of outside influence. There may not be billboards telling us that Big Brother is watching, but we know that we had better keep our lawns mowed.


5. District 9 directed by Neill Blomkamp—Another xenophobic dystopia wrapped in an original science-fiction drama. A really well-crafted film especially when one considers the budgetary restraints on it.

This one is for Timbo, as per his request for a Top-5 list of Coldplay songs from this decade. (I suppose this list could just be called, “Top-5 Coldplay Songs, Period,” since their first album debuted in 2000.) These are actually ordered according to my tastes.

1. “Viva la Vida” from Viva la Vida or Death and All His Friends—I could imagine the conversation around this song in the studio. The band comes in with a four chord progression piano piece with full accompaniment and producer Brian Eno says, “Nope, we’re throwing out the piano and cutting away most of the band. It’s just strings, bells, and one big drum, lads.” Incredible sound from their best album.


2. “Clocks” from A Rush of Blood to the Head—The first song to really feature the descending piano arpeggios, which became the distinctive Coldplay sound and one they milked too much (e.g., “Speed of Sound”).


3. “Lovers in Japan” from Viva la Vida or Death and All His Friends—Love the driving beat, which makes for a good song during commutes.


4. “Shiver” from Parachutes—Coldplay came out during a time when I hated nearly everything on mainstream radio and I took pride in that hatred. Chris Martin’s smooth transitions into his falsetto in the energetic chorus was one of the reasons I had to begrudgingly admit I actually liked Coldplay’s music despite the fact they were all over radio stations in 2000.


5. “Fix You” from X&Y—I’m a sucker for simple guitar lines over a crescendo. Check out this cover from the documentary Young@Heart.

I don’t know if people have been following this story, but Swiss voters recently approved a constitutional amendment that would ban the construction of further minarets in their nation. The whole measure and campaign seems rooted in fear. Not reasonable concern, but out and out xenophobia. According to an Associated Press story, “Backers said the growing Muslim population was straining the country ‘because Muslims don’t just practice religion.’” Yet, those backers seem to have neglected the facts. “Muslims comprise about 6 percent of Switzerland’s 7.5 million people. Many are refugees from the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s and about 1 in 10 actively practices their religion, the government says.” Based on the campaign and the legislation, one would think there is a spate of minaret construction in Switzerland. How many minarets currently exist in that Alpine nation? Four. And they don’t even sound out the calls to prayer.

Just take a look at the campaign poster, which it should be noted, has more minarets than Switzerland currently does.

The expert propagandists of the early 20th century would be proud to make a poster so full of insinuation, fear, and hate.

I am disturbed by these events. Thankfully there has been much international condemnation. I think this is bigotry and utterly discriminatory. It also says a lot on what people think religion should be. Religion should be toothless. It should have no real affect on our lives except that we give some money away and go an hour or so a week to a worship service. Religion should never change the way we live. The practice of religion is purely ceremonial. If Switzerland is so concerned with radical Islam infiltrating its way into the overall society—a dubious claim given the size of the Muslim population there—I would argue that marginalization is a backwards strategy at best. My sympathies go out to the Swiss Muslims, many of whom, as the story reported, are refugees from the Yugoslav wars. They were already forced out of their homeland only to be ostracized, feared, and hated in another nation.

I wonder, if Christians start practicing their religion outside the church walls, is Switzerland going to next outlaw church steeples and bell-towers?

Something returned to films in this decade that had been missing for a while: the villain as a purely evil character. The 1990’s had maybe one or two memorable movie villains—Hannibal Lector comes to mind—but that decade was marked more by the ironic anti-hero. Films such as Pulp Fiction and The Usual Suspects presented criminals in such a way that we as audiences were almost cheering for them, hoping they would be successful in their often illegal endeavors. Those characters were cool. The 2000’s on the other hand, brought back villains who, while being captivating, were truly terrifying and who did nothing to garner our sympathies. We didn’t want to see them escape or succeed, we wanted to see them stopped and caught. Perhaps this resurgence of villains has to do with the fact that after September 11, many around the world, and Americans especially, were once again awake to terror and evil and the films of the decade reflected that awareness.

Top-5 Movie Villains, in no particular order:

Gollum, The Lord of the Rings—A portrait of a life decimated by sin and idolatry, willing to kill for what he wants, ruled by his addiction. His lusts are so powerful that he loses his name to them. All the more frightening because we see how others could easily become like him.
Anton Chigur, No Country For Old Men—The unstoppable force of death hunting down people no matter their good intentions or ignorance. He actually gave me nightmares.
Daniel Plainview, There Will Be Blood—Unfettered greed wrapped in a deep-seated misanthropy. The one villain whose views and actions strike such a chord in me that I am drawn to reflection and prayer.
The Joker, The Dark Knight—A villain with no back story, but who is utterly developed. An absolute. He is the embodiment of anarchy and chaos. The scary thing is that all the killing he does is not as frightening as his menace, his understanding that we rely on rules, but those rules rely on fallible people to keep them.
Li’l Ze, City of God—The kid who loves violence and power from an early age. Take the animalistic rage and urges of Tommy DeVito (Joe Pesci) from Goodfellas, make him ten years old, and you start to get a picture of Li’l Ze.

Did I miss one of your favorites?

With the close of the decade, best-of-the-decade lists have been popping up everywhere. I know you readers are chomping at the bit to hear what I think was the best the decade had to offer, and I’ll be coming out with Top-5 lists. But I wanted to turn to you for suggestions of what topics my lists should cover. The standard, best movies or best novels will likely be addressed, but is there something more specific or quirky which we should list? Like, what about Top-5 Baseball Players Not Found to Be Taking Steroids (So Far)? Or Top-5 Movie Villains? What else?

I find that people generally think they have above-average skills in three areas:

1. Driving
2. Communicating
3. Being a good judge of character

That is all for today.

“More is Less,” the most recent radio episode of This American Life looks at the rising health care costs and asks who is to blame. Are doctors unnecessarily ordering procedures and prescribing medications? Are patients demanding costly services they don’t need? Are insurance companies doing little to keep the prices down? The short answer is yes, to all of them. It’s a fascinating listen and I recommend it highly.

All through the debate on reforming health care, something has not sit well with me and it is the fact that we as a society have arranged ourselves primarily as an economic entity. We make our choices based on our wallets and arrange our laws in such a way to reward and punish behavior financially. Many of the solutions discussed for health care reform have to do with how we address the market—tweak it, leave it alone, etc. But is health care really just a basket of goods and services that can and should be understood in purely economic terms? I don’t have a real answer for this, but I’ll give you some examples of why I see a purely economic view of health care as one that breaks down. These have to do with the fee-for-service aspect of health care.

My wife has a family friend who was a surgeon in the U.S., but due to increased insurance costs, decided to practice medicine in New Zealand, where the state pays for the vast majority of health care and patients are not allowed to sue their doctors. The growing cost of malpractice insurance created disincentives for him to continue practicing medicine in the U.S. In New Zealand, he and his staff were paid flat salaries for their work. He expressed a frustration over the fact that he was not doing nearly as many surgeries per day as he did in the U.S. Because the staff was paid a flat salary, there was no economic incentive for them to work faster and do more surgeries in a day. They were paid the same if they did three operations or seven in a day. This surgeon knew there were dozens of people in the queue waiting for these surgeries and it bothered him that his office could work faster, but people simply chose not to. If we do the math, they were actually paid more per unit of work and time if they did less procedures.

On the other hand, when we go to a fee-for-service model like one we have in the U.S., there are economic incentives for doctors and staffs to do more procedures, to see more patients. (Though the U.S. patients hava a longer wait-time to see doctors than in many countries with single-payer health care, which I don’t completely understand.) This model encourages efficiency and competition. It also exacerbates the issue that nearly 30% of health care spending in the U.S. is wasted. By paying more for more procedures and paying more for costlier and riskier procedures, we have created economic incentives for doctors to order unnecessary and expensive tests, operations, medications, etc. That is not to say all doctors do write unnecessary orders just to make money, but in our system the temptation is clearly there and the practice is clearly rewarded financially.

I’m not opposed to economics playing a role in health care. At the same time I am uncomfortable with changes in our health systems happening using purely economic tools. I don’t have real answers to the problem, this is just an aspect of the debate that has had me thinking for a while.

Any thoughts?

“Religion is like a knife: you can either use it to cut bread, or stick in someone’s back.”—Archbishop Desmond Tutu