My Experience of the 2012 South Carolina Primary

Living in an early primary state comes with certain opportunities and certain annoyances. Among the latter are incessant advertising through every form of media which leads one to eventually missing low budget ads from auto dealership and sleazy local attorneys. But it also leads to unique opportunities to get a little closer to these campaigns and their candidates. It's been more than a week now since the Republican primary here in South Carolina, so I thought I'd briefly describe my experience of it.

Rick Santorum

My view of Rick Santorum

The first visit to a campaign stop was not planned in advance at all. I had said that I really wanted to hit a campaign event (didn't care who) just for the experience. But what originally caused us to head to Spartanburg on a Wednesday morning was not Rick Santorum, it was the Duggar family (you know, "20 Kids and Counting"). At least the prospect of seeing a bunch of them at a Christian bookstore. Fact is, we sometimes watch their show and find it amusing. Keri just thought it would be fun to go see them, but only two of them were at that event. So we decided to head a mile up the road to the Beacon, a local hole in the wall that is famous for... I'm not sure. It's a poor man's Varsity, if you're familiar with that iconic Atlanta establishment.

JimBob Duggar

And once there, we were, in fact, in the middle of a genuine presidential campaign event. Santorum gave a nice version of his stump speech, and it was nice to hear the whole thing instead of 30-60 second soundbites in a debate. There was a warm crowd, a large media contingent (including a rather surly Carl Cameron), and all that stuff. And, yes, there were a bunch more Duggars present as well, so mission accomplished. We left feeling glad we had experienced a slice of a real Presidential campaign. We thought that would be it, but as it turned out, several other opportunities remained.

Ron Paul

My view of Ron Paul

I've always liked Ron Paul and his outside-the-box message, style, and campaign. His strict adherence to the Constitution and libertarian approach to most domestic issues is very attractive and sensible to me. His much-maligned foreign policy is not perfect, but overall I like him very much. (In fact, I think he's the most likable guy in the campaign). I recently wrote a longer take on Ron Paul here.

Now, I decided to catch Ron Paul in a hangar near the downtown Greenville airport as he was barnstorming the state on the eve of the primary. That crowd was totally different than the Santorum crowd - younger, much more raucous, and quite devoted to their guy. They're all convinced that they are the vanguard of a real revolution, and I'm not sure I disagree. In fact, I hope they're right. Paul was exactly what you'd expect. He is who he is all the time, I guess, which is pretty refreshing in a politician. Worth getting soaked for the experience.

Mitt Romney

Enthusiastically awaiting their guy

Less enthusiastically waiting

Our family expedition to see Mitt Romney was almost completely spontaneous. We were talking about it at dinner with my in-laws, and the next thing you know, we're all heading downtown after dinner to catch the last pre-election rally for Mitt Romney, which would also feature SC governor Nikki Haley and VA governor Bob McDonnell.

Not the best photo of Romney!

Nikki Haley with Ann Romney
& Bob McDonnell

Now this was a top-end political event, staged by an experienced crew. The room was stuffed with enthusiastic, sign-waving supporters. There was music thumping (the kind of classic rock Americana style you expect at these things). There was an oversized American flag and a huge contingency of local and national media. The room was hot and the boys were pretty miserable (after all, they could see nothing and the crowd was thick). We learned that my in-laws were in an overflow room and that the stars of the show would be coming by to greet those in the overflow room, so we decided to head that way.

Ann Romney seems to be the
most popular person in the room

The next thing you know, I'm with the boys and their grandparents right in the front/center of a small stage in the overflow room. After a nearly insufferable wait, we found ourselves a couple feet from the Romneys, Haleys, and McDonnells. Somehow I made eye contact with Romney and he came over to shake hands with the boys and I, as did his wife and, a couple minutes later, Haley. Everyone thought that the experience was pretty cool, and I think my oldest son, age 6, will likely remember the experience. He didn't want to leave, actually, wanting to head back to the main room to hear the speech (which is ironic, because he was quite vocal in not wanting to go at first).

Conclusion
Before you ask, I could not decide on a candidate until I was walking into a booth to vote. And I'm yet conflicted about who I voted for. Suffice to say that, from my perspective, all four candidates have pronounced strengths and pronounced weaknesses, and I could have given my vote to any of the three I saw on the trail. I'm glad that we took some time to experience the campaigns this way, though. It was honestly pretty cool.

Homer Simpson Would Love This

Here's an image that seems fairly descriptive of a fairly wide swath of our culture. It seems this is a remote control that doubles as a bottle opener. And, just in time for the hyperbolic run-up to the Super Bowl, it's available at a Groupon special price. Oy.

Thinking About Ron Paul

I'm one of those undecided South Carolina GOP primary voters being targeted by all these (very) aggressive campaigns. I'm not particularly enamored with any of these five remaining candidates. All have strengths (though in one case you have to look awfully hard), and all have significant weaknesses. So I've come to grips with the fact that I'll be voting for someone I don't totally agree with. I'm also fairly convinced that Mitt Romney will win here on Saturday and will wind up the GOP nominee.

So let's talk about the curious case of Ron Paul. Now, to be clear, I don't think he really has a chance to win this nomination and I bet that, in his heart of hearts, he doesn't think so either. His campaign is about promoting his ideas/ideology, and that is generally a very good thing. He's honestly quite brilliant on economic issues and admirable in sticking to his guns on the Constitution, limited government, fiscal conservatism, and liberty. He seems to be alone in his commitment to making real substantive changes in the area of federal spending by cutting a trillion bucks from the budget, eliminating entire departments of the bureaucracy, and that sort of thing. He's also the only candidate I am completely confident is not beholden to or in the pocket of big corporate interests (like Big Pharma, for example) as well.

Now, there is that whole foreign policy issue. In an ideal sense, Paul's foreign policy ideals make sense. I don't know why America is the policeman of the world, why our troops get scattered all over the place, etc. But, alas, we don't live in a vacuum. We are where we are and some of his positions (on Iran, for example), seem a bit reckless, to be honest. But, here again, I remind you that Ron Paul isn't going to win... and a little more circumspection in our foreign policy would be a positive development.


Will I vote for Ron Paul? I don't know yet. I thought about it in 2008 and didn't pull the trigger. But I'm encouraged that people are taking him and, more importantly, his ideas more seriously. The GOP should take seriously his ability to ignite and create a significant movement of impassioned, if occasionally annoyingly exuberant voters, many of whom were previously unengaged politically. Those followers should not be ignored. The GOP needs their energy and enthusiasm. (I personally have high hopes that his movement will come to some fruition in Rand Paul, but that's another post for another time.) 


I do want to bring attention to a very thorough article that thoughtfully builds a case for Ron Paul based on biblical and constitutional concerns, written by Vodddie Baucham. 

The Medium and the Message: What I Learned From Junk Mail

I regularly get direct mail from insurance companies and other insurance-related organizations that want me to sell their stuff. Usually it's a "hot" new Medicare product. (Think about that - do normal people ever think of anything related to Medicare as being "hot"?) Often it's some kind of life insurance thing that's going to make me rich.

The fun card (logo hidden to protect the guilty)

A few weeks ago I got one that was pretty cool. It was a card that, when opened, started playing a fun little New Orleans-style ditty. (I'm assuming you've seen greeting cards that play songs... it was like that). The kids really enjoyed it, and still do once in a while. That was a bit more expensive than a normal piece of direct mail marketing that they obviously thought would be worthwhile to stand out from the other junk.

Here's the thing. The other day I was telling Keri about it, but couldn't recall anything about it other than the music. I couldn't remember what insurance company had sent it or what product they were advertising.

I find it to be an interesting object lesson that it's possible for the medium to overwhelm the message.

That's something to keep in mind anytime you're trying to communicate something you think is important - whether it's your company's marketing message, your cause of choice, or your church's presentation of the Gospel. The medium matters, and creative presentation can be fantastic. But we need to be sure that the medium doesn't overwhelm the message. Because then the people we're trying to reach will completely miss the point.

Is Atlanta a Rotten Sports Town?

With some regularity, sports commentators rip the city of Atlanta (my hometown) as a bad sports town. Todaysome lower-tier ESPN writer has published his view that "without question, Atlanta is the worst sports town in America." (Quite honestly, the piece is uncreative and poorly written, too!) So I offer two responses. The first, a defense of Atlanta by an Atlanta sports fan. The second, in what I imagine they would consider the quintessential Atlanta response, I shrug my shoulders and say, "Who cares?"

First, a defense. There are several salient points to make:

* Atlanta professional sports teams not named "Falcons" labor under ownership situations that range from bad to downright farcical. The Braves have out-of-town corporate owners that don't care about them beyond a tax write-off (literally). The Hawks (and formerly, the Thrashers) have a loose amalgamation of disparate owners who literally spent years in court suing each other. Nobody cares to build a winner, and fans aren't inclined to support that kind of owner.

* Most people that populate the metro Atlanta area are not natives. So they are casual observers at best of the local sports scene.

* When most of these commentators talk about "sports" they really mean "PRO sports." Because Atlanta is filled with sports fans, who on any given Saturday in the fall put 80,000-100,000 people in raucous college football stadiums within 2-3 hours drive in places like Athens, Auburn, Clemson, Columbia, Tuscaloosa, and, a bit further afield Knoxville. And that's not to mention the thousands packed into high-school stadia the night before.

Now, at the end of the day, I guess I'm an ultimate Atlanta sports fan, because I say "Who cares?" I don't orient my life and happiness around the success of the local team. The ESPN writer describes New York Giants fans, admiringly, as "living and dying with their team. Football is a part of their lifestyle, it's who they are." Yeah that's not me. Guess I'm not a "fan" (which is short for, you know, "fanatic"). And maybe that's not my town. But you know, I'm OK with that.

I enjoy sports, but I don't live for sports.

Pujols, Buckets of Cash, Loyalty, and Fandom

Pujols being introduced to his new fans 

los_111210_pujolspresser.jpg espn.go.com 

If you haven't heard, Albert Pujols just signed a deal to play for the Anaheim Angels (I can't bring myself to write "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim" because it's a dumb name) for somewhere slightly north of a quarter-billion dollars (yes, with a B) over the next 10 years. That a man could get paid more than the GDP of a bunch of small countries to play a game bothers a lot of people. That he would leave the St. Louis Cardinals also bothers a lot of people (who, as it turns out, are mostly fans of that proud franchise). I'm not a fan of either team, and have no particular allegiance to Pujols, so I offer these thoughts as a detached observer.

Should an athlete make that kind of money? I understand the complaint, but would you turn down the contract? Nobody would pay the man that kind of money if they didn't think they would make that much or more by employing him (in terms of putting a winning product on the field, in terms of marketing and merchandising, and in terms of eyes on television sets and butts in stadium seats). It's a free marketplace, and any one of us is worth whatever someone else is willing to pay, right? (And it should be noted that Pujols, by all accounts is a genuine believer, is very generous with his truckloads of money).

Was Albert Pujols disloyal? or... Did Albert Pujols owe St. Louis anything? The cries of loyalty are not uncommon in sports. I remember hearing the same thing when Tom Glavine, the legendary Braves pitcher, signed a deal with the hated Mets (talk about a deal with the devil!). Sports fans (think about the etymology of the term "fan" -- a shortened form of "fanatic") react to these issues in an emotional way because they have a (sometimes deep) emotional investment in their team.

Pujols in days gone by.
(albert-pujols-signs-tx4.jpg transcripts.cnn.com)

That's understandable. But let's think about this. What if you were offered a job with another company or firm in your industry - a good, upwardly mobile company, with some long term advantages (the designated hitter role in the American League makes a lot of sense for an aging Albert Pujols in the back half of that contract). Imagine that job also came with a salary that was 25% higher than what you'd make with your present employer. Sure you'd have to weigh out the advantages and disadvantages of relocating and all of that. But... would you blame someone for taking that job?

Maybe a story like this gives us an opportunity to step back and consider how emotionally invested we allow ourselves to get with our favorite teams. There's a line in the movie "Fever Pitch" (about a crazed Red Sox fan) where a kid asks the main character something like this: "You love the Red Sox and give everything for them. But do they love you back?" The answer is obvious.

This year, more than ever, has presented us with a number of cautionary tales that remind us not to put too much of our stock into these teams, programs, and players (and coaches). They'll let us down. (Yes, even Tim Tebow is human.) Only One person is worthy of our praise, and the good news is He won't let us down, won't dessert us for a better offer or more money (He doesn't need it), and definitely loves us back (because He loved us first).

Thinking about a song: "More Like Falling in Love"

The other day I was in the car flipping through radio stations and came upon a pretty catchy song on one of the Christian radio stations (yes we have 3 different Christian radio stations). I was honestly enjoying it musically -- the vibe, as it were -- and then began to notice the lyrics. That kinda ruined the song. The chorus described the singer's desire for a faith that is:

More like falling in love
Than something to believe in
More like losing my heart
Than giving my allegiance

Jason Gray, "More Like Falling in Love" 

Here we have a great encapsulation of the romanticism that is so prevalent in Christian circles (at least in this country) and which permeates pop Evangelicalism. It's all about feelings and "heart engagement." We want a worship "experience" that gives us heart palpitations and warm fuzzies more than one that engages us with Truth. We all are familiar with the "Jesus is my girlfriend" genre of worship music where you could remove the word "Jesus" or "God" and insert a girl's name and make it a pop ballad. I think that many Evangelicals aren't "in love" with Jesus as much as they are infatuated.

Look, I've got nothing against engaging with God at an emotional level -- after all He made us emotional beings and we are to honor Him and pursue Him with our emotions. But if that's all we're doing then we are worshiping with less than our all -- less than our heart, mind, soul, and strength. What does this singer want to fall in love with? Presumably Jesus. But without the anchors of Gospel truth, the theological belief system and the meat of doctrine, he could wind up falling in love with a different Jesus, one of his own making.

The thing about this kind of weak-kneed, infatuation experience is that emotions are fickle and infatuation wanes. The human heart is deceitful, right? The feeling of "falling in love" will retreat when life gets hard, and there will be nothing to hang onto without "something to believe in." Real love has more to do with "allegiance" than breathlessly "losing my heart." You have to have something to hold onto when the feeling wanes, something to hang your faith on when your heart is wandering a different direction.

I'm reminded of Francis Schaeffer's influential argument that the Western experience has been split into two pieces, which he likened as two levels of a house. The lower level was the public life, where you find reason. The upper level is the private life, where you find your emotions, your spiritual beliefs, and that sort of thing. This is why you hear talk of your faith being good for you but not appropriate to be brought into the public sphere (of government, work, etc.). Schaeffer warned against believers being co-opted by this false dichotomy. Songs like this one fit neatly into this bifurcation -- the singer is yearning for an "upper level" experience with God without regard to the "lower level."

That might be temporarily satisfying and give you goosebumps, but it won't stand the test of time. No thanks. We need both. Give us love that is rooted in Truth.

The Re-Invention of Barnes & Noble Continues

The Nook is the star of the show now

A little over a year ago I walked into a Barnes & Noble and noticed some subtle changes. Tonight we walked in and I'd say the re-invention is in full swing. If it wasn't obvious before, it's very clear now that the Nook has taken a central role in the company's future, and has literally taken a central role in the brick and mortar store. The first thing you see when you walk in is a huge Nook store-within-store, right in the middle of everything. And that makes sense -- one of the chief advantages that the Nook has over the Kindle is the brick and mortar presence where customers can check it out, play with it, and ask questions. The Nook really is the key to the future of the business.

For what it's worth, I think there are other advantages to the Nook -- mainly the ability to read all kinds of file types, including PDF, ePub, etc. From what I understand, the Kindle is more limited to files formatted for the Kindle (which is to say, those purchased from Amazon!) If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me.

Bye bye music, hello toys and games

There are other significant changes as well. When Barnes & Noble hit the scene in the 1990s, one of the cool things about it was the music center in the store. Well, seriously, when was the last time you bought a CD there? For that matter, when was the last time you bought an actual CD? Yep, it was inevitable and now it's happened - the music area is gone. In it's place is a "Toys & Games" area where you'll find some stuff for kids to do (the Thomas train table and a Lego table the kids enjoyed). The toys and games you'll find there are oriented towards educational purposes (i.e. there's some kind of redeeming value to them, in theory anyway), which sets these apart from a lot of the Toys R Us stuff. I think it's a great idea.

I really hope Barnes & Noble makes it in a rapidly changing industry. I love having it there as a place to hang out, thumb through books or magazines alone or with the kids, and now with the addition of more things for the kids to actually do, it's a nice place to go hang out as a family. And yes, we actually bought a couple things.

Great Pursuit

I have another blog called The Great Pursuit. The truth is I'm never sure exactly what to put here versus there. At times I think of killing it and consolidating to one blog, but I kind of like having one that has a name other than my own. That could be useful. At present, it's primarily a place where I write more devotionally and/or where I like to put particularly noteworthy or thought-provoking excerpts of something I'm reading. I sometimes entertain thoughts of trying to post there quite frequently along those lines in order to spur myself to think, read, and study that way more often. I welcome any thoughts or suggestions on that front.

For now, I'll just note that tonight I posted an entry titled "Piper on Our Fixation with Personal Comfort."

John Stott on the danger of presumption in study

The recent death of John Stott has inspired me to finally dive into what is generally considered to be his magnum opus, The Cross of Christ. In the preface, he makes a very wise disclaimer that eloquently states some of the discomfort I had as I got deep into doctoral work at seminary:

"In daring to write (and read) a book about the cross, there is of course a great danger of presumption. This is partly because what actually happened when 'God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ' is a mystery whose depths we shall spend eternity plumbing, and partly because it would be most unseemly to feign a cool detachment as we contemplate Christ's cross. For, whether we like it or not, we are involved. Our sins put him there. So, far from offering us flattery, the cross undermines our self-righteousness. We can stand before it only with a bowed head and a broken spirit…"

Now I want to be very quick to note that this is not at all meant to disparage or denigrate the study and pursuit of theology, whether it is undertaken formally or informally. I simply found that it was too easy for me to lose sight of the proper attitude and posture that such study should take.