Photo by Gil Jimenez

I was chastised the other day for using the term “Merry Christmas” on the company website. My director strongly recommended that I update the expression to a more all-inclusive one: “Happy Holidays.” Of course, I well-understood the reasoning behind this recommendation—I was part of a generation of American children who grew up with the Disney Channel not only wishing us “Merry Christmas,” but “Happy Hanukkah,” and “Happy Kwanzaa” as well. Nonetheless, I grew quite frustrated at this recommendation. To me it was just one example of how modern society has disrupted and destroyed culture.

I might say “Merry Christmas,” but I’m not a Christian, and I don’t pretend like Jesus was born on December 25th instead of in April. I’m just partaking in the same cultural phenomenon of winter celebration that began with the pagans, which Christians later hijacked for themselves. Perhaps if I thought into it, I should decide that I’ve been disingenuous, and that I should more appropriately refer to my holiday as Yule or Saturnalia, but I’m cautious to call myself a pagan since that makes it sound like I’m a polytheist that sacrifice’s animals in his backyard, secretly worships idols and partakes in ritualistic orgies.

Christmas, and the communal winter festivity surrounding it, is first and foremost a cultural event and always has been, and when I use the term “Merry Christmas,” I don’t mean to convey any message besides a reference to that shared culture. Yet as we continue to find ourselves disintegrated into institutions and workplaces among people that do not share even this most basic element of culture, our culture is dissipated and our ability to relate and communicate sincerely is disrupted by political correctness. The warmest expression of winter greetings suddenly becomes an actual act of discrimination.

But really, how fair is the use of “Happy Holidays” anyway? Even this secular and acultural expression doesn’t take everyone into consideration. What about my Jehovah’s Witness friends? They don’t celebrate any holiday. If we were really to get serious about nondiscrimination we should prohibit all public communication whatsoever of holiday greetings. It would only be fair that public discourse should be exclusively limited to practical and productive things, and culture references be removed all together.

I may not be a Christian, but I accept the cultural term “Christmas” because that is the cultural name that has come to represent the traditional winter celebration in my culture. The name is arbitrary, just as culture is arbitrary, but culture retains importance and meaning because it represents what a community shares. So as we live in a world where culture is being displaced by the mechanism of a modern and global society that does not recognize community, forgive me if I cling to what little sense of culture there is left.

Photo by Chase Nordengren

Photo by Wesley Fryer

Photo by Lenny

My First Tattoo by Lisa

Photo by Benny Lin

Peace, Hope, Love, Live, Laugh, Joy, Dream, Cherish. These are the words that consitute the new secular dogma. And it seems well enough that these could be words to live by. Oh Peace is a desirable state of things. And Hope is always good. Love is, by far, a necessity. Laughter, of course, is a lovely experience. Who doesn’t want Joy in their lives? What would it be like not to Dream? And, by God, we should Cherish everything we have.

But these words are part of our language, they have always been ours, so why is it that we feel the need to go out and buy effigies of these words to hang on our living room walls to show that we believe in them? What idiocy is this?

The popularity of these “word products,” at first, seems like a rather benign fad. But as with all things that seem innocuous and completely without detriment, there is an unforeseen consequence.

People come to believe something profound in these words. They feel that they are paying homage to the word by acquiring actual effigies and placing them in their home. But words are representations, and by creating effigies of words we effectively separate them from any actual context. These words are extracted from context and given a level of inherent importance and value. The word is taken to represent something good, or goodness itself, which is also a term that means nothing if in and of itself.

Not only are these words no longer in context of actual situations, but they are not even in the context of other words. Hope what? Love who? Cherish what? Live how? Laugh when? Dream what? Peace why?

Words must represent something or at least be associated with something specific, because that is what they are–representations. But these idolized words come to represent nothing, but another representation–the general idea of goodness. They are tied to nothing, and therefore they don’t actually mean a thing. Hanging a word like Hope on your wall is akin to the idolatry that the Bible teaches against.* “See, they are all false! Their deeds amount to nothing; their images are but wind and confusion” (Isaiah 41:29 NIV). These words are hallow like the idols of ancient Israel.

So how can something that doesn’t mean anything end up being harmful or misleading? Well, you can smack the word “Hope” on anything, like a presidential campaign or a business operation or diesel truck for that matter, and though it means nothing at all, it seems to mean that whatever the word is associated with is part of that assumed goodness. While it retains no actual meaning, some people ignorantly believe that any message which utilizes one of these word must be a message of goodness, and so they don’t bother to look at the dirty details.

These words almost seem to be invoked as commandments of the secular dogma, but they can mean very terrible things as well. What is a commandment for Peace, when you must fight for your own freedoms? What’s to stop someone from Hoping their neighbor will suffer ill-fortune? What’s to keep a man from Loving a women who is not his wife? Who’s to say that a hospitalized person in a vegetable state wants to Live? There are certainly times when Laughter can be terribly cruel. Dreams are not without nightmares. Why shouldn’t we enjoy sorrow, when we have lost our Joy? And if we are to Cherish some people, then we must also hold others out of favor.

So these meaningless effigies and these word slogans that people throw about with this noble air can just as easily mean something good or bad. Out of context, the words still mean absolutely nothing, yet by some faint and meaning which people give these words, they are easily lead to believe that something meaningful and positive is being said.

It is this belief in representations and images instead of the actual objects they represent, that has led man astray for ages. And it exists in many more forms of representation than words, but this trend of emblazoning words on walls and pictures, and products, is just a sign of a world very disconnected from reality–very disconnected from context. And the way in which consumers have bought into this worship of words so whole-heatedly is a chilling sign that our society is descending further from the truth into an age of falsity.

*I reference the Bible to support my case in this article. Of course, it is quite ironic, however, that dogmatic Christians who praise the “word” of God are guilty of the same form of idol worship that their holy text condemns.

Photo by Sean Dreilinger

I was out buying a winter hat and some mittens, when I overheard a dispute in the next aisle between a mother and her small child. “But Mom, we have the money,” the boy whined.

Now, I have no idea what it was the boy wanted, but what was interesting to me was the way the mother handled it. The mother was silent. She ignored her little son, who I’d guess was about four years old. It was obvious that the boy had recently learned reasoning skills, and I laughed to myself at the irony of the situation.

“Mom, we have the money.” He whined again, but the mother was still silent. She continued to ignore her son, as if his reasoning had stumped hers. It seem their roles were reversed. The mother was the obstinate one, and the child was the one trying to reason. “But we have the money.” he whined again, but she still refused to answer him.

Now, of course, just because parents have the money to buy something doesn’t mean they should buy it for their children, but this is something that this child didn’t understand, and this was a perfect opportunity for the mother to teach her son this point. But instead, the mother passed it off as a moot point. A point not worth discussing with her son.

Perhaps, she thought it was a point to advanced for her son to understand, but it would be wrong of her to think this. Children have an amazing capacity for understanding, and it is the adult underestimation of children, and the adult’s lack of communication that often inhibits the intellectual growth and maturity of a child. This lack of communication compounds itself and exacerbates misunderstandings between children and parents. Sure, it’s difficult to explain the concepts of money and the importance of savings and budgeting and the fact that you can’t just buy everything you want, but you’ve got to begin somewhere, and the earlier the better.

Some parents feel cursed by these moments when their child disagrees with them. Somewhere down the path of modern society parents have come to believe that parenting is supposed to be a hassle. Our perception of parenting is the Married with Children paradigm. Parenthood and family is supposed to be somehow sentimentally enjoyable while most of it is a pain in the ass, but this is a terrible outlook, which actually detriments how parents will handle a situation before it is presented to them. A parent who thinks this way is likely just to pass most family problems off, saying “That’s just the way it is,” instead of challenging these issues for the better. Some parents just wish their child would behave, and when he or she doesn’t they just accept it as the undesirable reality of parenthood. But it doesn’t have to be this way.

The way I see it, every point of disagreement between a parent and child is an opportunity for development of intelligence and reasoning skills, no matter the age. At the same time, it is a chance for parents to develop a more intimate relationship with their child. Some parents, however, seem to prefer to stifle their child’s reasoning and intelligence, by exercising their power, instead of communicating with their child. In this way, they also stifle their relationship with the child. As a parent, the way of power is the easier way to get things done. Explaining things is difficult and it takes an investment of time. It’s easy just to say “No,” or just to deny a response to your child’s unreasonable pleas. But in this way, the child never develops an understanding of the social experience. He doesn’t develop a close relationship with his parents. He never develops a respect for his parents as people. Instead he only comes to respect the power which his parents represented. But if parents communicate with their children, and respect what their children have to say, even if it is,at times, unreasonable, parents will not only benefit their child’s intelligence and reasoning skills. They will also earn a respect and trust from their child which is necessary to develop a healthy parent/child relationship.

Photo by pixielauren

Original Caption: ''The kids getting candy at the mall in their costumes.''

Last Halloween, I was on my way back from a quick motorcycle trip to Mexico. I took a friend on the back seat down to Puerto Peñasco specifically to escape American culture and get a glimpse of El Dia de los Muertos. Our American ignorance proved unfailing. We were surprised or rather disappointed to find practically no public celebration. Perhaps, that’s because we assumed the day of the dead was the same day as Halloween, when it was actually celebrated on Nov. 1 and 2. But despite that important misunderstanding, we didn’t notice any marketing campaign pushing goods for the upcoming holiday. We didn’t see any skulls for sale in the supermarket or in the candy store. We were surprised to find absolutely no commercialization of the holiday at all.

We left Mexico on Halloween, the day we thought was The Day of the Dead, and on our return trip spent the night in a suburb north of Phoenix called Anthem. We happened to stay in a Howard Johnson across the street from an outlet mall, and when we ambled on over to the mall we found the strangest site. The children of the suburb were all dressed up in costumes, walking door to door with their parents collecting buckets of candy from merchants such as Gap, Nike and Ralph Lauren.

The contrast between Puerto Peñasco, Mexico and Anthem, USA was sickening. The sight horrified me for two reasons. This takes the meaning of a corporate holiday to new far more malignant level. This wasn’t just marketing and clever holiday packaging. The corporations were actually hosting the holiday itself!

Photo by Ken Rachynski

Children in line and in constume for candy at the mall.

What horrified me more, though, was what the event told me about it’s community. This suburb at the outskirts of Phoenix probably hardly existed five years ago, now it was teeming with a commuters and their unfortunate offspring. These people really don’t know each other. There is relatively little that bonds this community together and hence, these inhabitants of Anthem don’t trust their neighbors. So the safe alternative–the only haven of trust–turned out to be the corporations that set up shop in Anthem’s Outlet Mall. Isn’t that just sad? Is it not curious how the increasing disintegration of our communities drives us further and further into a dependence on the corporation?

When I further researched the Outlet Mall, I also found they offered free interactive kids programs on Wednesdays. Now, why do you suppose the outlet mall offers a free interactive kids program? I’m sure they’re marketing manager knows it’s worth the investment. Not only will this “free” class drag parents into the outlet mall, but it will also familiarize a whole group of young potential consumers with the brands of evermore paternal corporations. This terrifying event seems like an event lifted from the pages of an old distopian novel, but this scene is real, and iI’ll bet it’s not an isolated incident. Rather, it’s likely the beginning of a rather disturbing and popular trend where communities spring up in external elegance, numerous conveniences, complex city government and advanced infrastructure, but lack all the innards that make a real community of human beings a cohesive unit.

Lemonade Stand by adwriter

There’s something I find particularly disquieting about the early capitalistic endeavors of children. A sign drawn in multicolor marker in hand at the street corner: a desperate shake or wave of the sign not just informing you, not just asking you, but begging you to buy their exorbitantly priced lemonade.

It’s not as if you can pretend to have overlooked their place of business in the favor of another: you would feel quite immoral. How could one ignore that youthful exuberance, those seeking eyes, and the angelic halos cast by the summer sun?

Coming across the typical lemonade stand, at first, you are likely to feel a call to flight. Oh, if one were to stop at every lemonade stand! You try to look away so as not to be entrapped by the guilt-inspiring tractor beam of puppy-dog faces.

The second instinct, however, is one of pity. While these young boys and girls are not likely to be risking any great financial investment, there is some great hazard at hand to their naive egos. And for a horrifying instant, one worries that there is no one but oneself to save their enterprise and their innocent faith in capitalism.

On approach to the rickety stand, young eyes reeling you in like a floundering fish, you can’t help but feel awkward. For an instant, you wonder if you had any choice, in the first place, as to the, now, inevitable purchase.

You’ve entered the radius of proximity of prospective customer. But at a lemonade stand, a prospective customer is a guaranteed customer, and you know you’ve been involuntarily committed. The little capitalists know likewise. You pretend you still have options, and maybe you stall as if stumped between a choice of Country Time instant lemonade, or Country Time instant lemonade.

You look quickly for pricing information, none to be found, so you ask with a smile and sparkle in your eye: “How much is this, here, lemonade by the glass?” The terse response “two-fifty” rings so loud in your ears with the tone of impatience and unfriendliness, that you forget to be outraged by the price.

Your grudgingly keep a smile on your face and pull for your wallet in sheer embarrassment. You’ve been conned, and you know it. Couldn’t they at least hide the lemonade powder, so you didn’t know you were being ripped off? But you realize that that is a more advanced capitalistic lesson that they have yet to learn–a lesson they don’t need to learn as long as they have baby faces.

And when you receive your half-full Dixie cup of instant lemonade, you think you’ve reached maximum exasperation. That is, until you’re handed your 50 cents change and notice the youthful eyes intentionally avoiding the giant fish-bowl labeled “Tips” in hand-written three-inch bubble letters. And you falter, you almost choke on your first and last sip of lemonade, and you deposit one quarter after another with protracted, yet concealed, bitterness.

The quarters still ringing in your ears, you walk away, hurt, wounded and extorted. Such are the lessons that dispel the myth of childish innocence and stand as testament to their ability to effectively exploit the capitalist system.

Originally composed June 24, 2008

Hannah Montanna is just so hip and sexy. Why wouldn't you want to buy her jeans?

I was resentfully assaulted by this whole Hannah Montana sensation upon a rare visit to my local Wal-Mart. Images of her plastic face decked with copious amounts of foundation, heavily liner-laden porn star eyes, lips sparkling with her own brand of lip gloss were enlarged and plastered on display bins and posters at every turn in the store.

Her face was branded on bicycle helmets, movies, compact discs, backpacks, alarm clocks, swimming suits, clothes, lunch boxes, jewelry, stickers, games, scooters, play phones, bath beach towels, notebooks, planners, key chains, iPod docks, dolls, books, folding chairs, blankets…I’m frankly too fed up to go on.

Now I have nothing against Miley Cyrus personally, but don’t you think she’s a little young at the age of 15 to be in bed with fat dandies like Wal-Mart and Disney? Wait, there’s no age of consent law when it comes to selling your body to a corporation. But this is really undignified. One could say she entered into these agreements on her own free will. But these corporations own her. They made her who she is. They put her up in front of the lights, up in hot new clothes, in layers of makeup, and they purchased the rights to her body for just a couple million dollars a year. Despite all the money they’ve paid for her services, they know they’re getting the better deal. They are ravishing this young woman, and they’ll gang bang all the money they can out of her hot little bod until she’s dried up on drugs.

What’s even more disturbing is how parents aren’t disturbed that their little girls are eating it all right up. And that their pubescent boys are salivating at the mouth. Sure it’s effective marketing, but what does it reveal about the idiocy of our culture? Are we not concerned about the dignity of our girls who are parading around as little Hannah Montana wannabes? Are we not concerned that this underage sex-icon is setting the standard for young women? Is this perfectly-primped Barbie-doll-superstar millionaire-teenager, really the role model we want our girls to aspire to and compare themselves against?

Of course not. But is Wal-Mart going to pull Hannah Montana items from their shelves in moral indignation? No. Are Wal-Mart customers going to boycott in outrage, until they do? No. Hannah Montana is the product of Disney, a great and paternal corporation. When a great and paternal corporation endorses something, the customer is obliged to endorse it as well. Who is a single man to disrespect a great and paternal corporation?