03.27.07
so yeah…in other news…
Not much going on here. Just barely not-drowning in work, etc. Life’s been pretty uneventful, except, of course, for the fact that I’m gonna be a dad in September.
That’s all.
03.21.07
in the name of science…
Exploring the Role of Internet Advertising in American Politics
This survey is designed to help us understand what Americans like you think about internet advertising, modern campaigns, and politics. We are very interested in your thoughts on this matter and greatly appreciate your participation.
Click here to take the survey:
http://www.ic.sunysb.edu/stu/crweber/TAKE%20SURVEY/internet_advertising.htm
Permalink Comments off
03.10.07
the blockbuster phenom
***Disclaimer: The below represents my opinion, nothing more.***
Almost 2 years ago, I wrote a post about what I perceived to be racist practices at Blockbuster. It’s still my opinion that Blockbuster engages in racist practices, specifically their posting of a theft deterrent message in English and Spanish but not providing any other Spanish language translations on any other materials for their customers. But there’ve been quite a few folks who have wished ill on me for daring to speak my opinion about Blockbuster, others still think my understanding of the facts is incorrect. Fair enough, I have my opinion, they can certainly have theirs. The latest opinion, however, really struck me as, well, a bit amazing. Here it is:
Ok listen….i am a store manager at BBV. We put the signs up in both languages because it is required by law…ok BY LAW. So dont think BBV is racist, it is our government. I think you all should realize really quick that the same thing goes for all businesses with a safe on the grounds. I have to agree with our government. The statistics do show that most roberies are done by some sort of ethnic group other than white. Im not racist but if a bunch of mexicans looking suspisious walks into my store i will follow them and make sure my presence is known. This world is ran on diversity, just deal with the racism.
So here we have someone claiming to be a Blockbuster Video store manager. Interestingly, this person claims that signs are posted in both English and Spanish because the law requires this of places of business with safes on the grounds. I find this claim to be curious on a number of levels. First, I’ve noticed that there are video stores, some larger and likely have a greater daily fiscal income per store who are also likely have safes on the premises, but do not post this legally required sign. Second, if what this self-proclaimed blockbuster video store manager says is true, one should notice these signs ALL over the place. In Grand Rapids, Michigan, this is not the case. Now, I don’t know where this person claiming to be a store manager is from but I highly doubt that Grand Rapids, Michigan requires that all businesses with safes on their premises require theft deterrent signs to be printed in English and Spanish.
The statistics do show that most roberies are done by some sort of ethnic group other than white.
I’m curious to know which statistics you’re citing. Where can I find them? What organization or academic completed the research? In which peer reviewed journal did this work appear? What specifically are you interpreting as evidence that people of color commit more crimes than white people?
To me the most disturbing claim is this:
Im not racist but if a bunch of mexicans looking suspisious walks into my store i will follow them and make sure my presence is known.
Wow. I didn’t really expect to have my point made so well. Now, I must reiterate, I have no other evidence that this person actually works for Blockbuster other than their own admission that they do. However, if what they say is true, you’ve just witnessed a Blockbuster employee openly praising the practice of violating the civil rights of hispanic patrons.
I’d be curious to hear an official Blockbuster statement. Furthermore, if any Blockbuster representative would like to do a bit of fact checking about the rogue employee who posted on this blog, I’d be more than happy to turn over any information about this individual (i.e. IP address, email, etc).
03.05.07
the science of faith
It’s spring break. Perhaps that will mean that I’ll post a time or two, maybe not. We’ll see. At any rate, I’ve been thinking on something lately that I think I’m right about.
It strikes me that scientists and preachers have a whole lot in common. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that they basically have the same job. Here’s what I mean:
A preacher spends her or his existence attempting to help us understand the truth about the world as it’s been specially revealed to us in scripture. A scientist spends her or his existence attempting to help us understand the truth about the world as it’s been generally revealed to us in creation.
If one accepts God to be a creator and sustainer of creation, it basically follows, then, that both God’s general and special revelation of Godself tell us truth about God. Right? You follow me?
So, you’re thinking to yourselves, “Hey, Brandon, what’s with the waxing esoteric about science and faith all of a sudden. You’re being a big buzz-kill.” You’re right, I am. Sorry. But, as of late I’ve been bothered by something. It seems to me that when preachers give sermons they like to extend their scope beyond the special revelation of scripture. Preachers, especially ones with fundamentalist-ish roots, have a few favourite whipping-boys when it comes to sloppily preaching about things outside of their purview. As a soon-to-be-internet-researcher, my area of study is a favorite whipping-boy. (Myspace is causing the world to end up in hell, etc.)
So what if a preacher or two gets a tad pissy about the internet in a sermon? Who cares? Well, frankly, I do–and I’m guessing God agrees with me (he regularly does; I’m rarely wrong.) I care because the folks who talk bad about the internets have rarely read the work of those who have spent time trying to understand the way God has created humans to use the internet as a tool. In short, many of the people who would love nothing more than to demonize a whole medium of human communication, haven’t spent a lick of time reading the academic literature about it.
Imagine if a scientist, in his or her writing, made sweeping claims about faith without having read the claims of the documents about which they were proclaiming judgment. Such claims would be met with faith-wide outcry of a scientific prejudice about faith. Why then, are scientists who claim faith so damn tolerant of faithful prejudice about science?
So, are we to require that each time a pastor gives a sermon that they’ve read all of the extant literature relevant to the domain about which they hope to speak. I think not. (Although, a bit more research couldn’t hurt.) Rather, I would argue that the Church needs to stop being a failure at teaching its people the skill of application.
The skill of application is, to me, a major missing component to what it takes to be a church-member. We’ve so sanitized church in the hopes that any 4-year old without a church background will feel comfortably that they’ve been able to fully digest each aspect of the sermon, that our parishoners have lost the skill of being able to apply what they hear. Sure, I’ll blame MTV, too. Our culture has consistently and progressively been willing to engage of more of the cognitive processing (read: thinking) for its audience…and the Church has followed suit.
If the Church could process the messages it heard, there’d be less need for pastors to go out on tenuous limbs and whack at the whipping-flavors of the month. Rather, people could hear the truth as revealed in scripture, and (wonder upon wonders) do the work of application to their own lives.
It’s just a thought.
