A problem for today, and a bigger one for “tommorrow”

Albert Mohler, President of Southern Seminary in Louisville, KY posted a thought provoking article today about the disappearance of men from college campuses.  Click HERE to read it.

Thoroughly Japanese

And I say that as a compliment and with a high level of respect.  For the first time tonight I saw one of the new Toyota commercials that deal with the loss of consumer confidence that has arisen out of the Company’s recent problems with accelerators and now braking-systems in some of its hybrids.  These problems have resulted in immeasurable amounts of negative press coverage, government bungling and grand standing, and doubtlessly fear, anger and upset among its existing customers.  Toyota is trying to repair the damage to both its cars and its mangled image.  Here is that commercial.

In my earlier life as a corporate executive, I had the pleasure of traveling to Japan to work with our business agents and our customers.  The sense of courtesy, honor and integrity that is a part of Japanese culture, particularly in the world of business, is clear when dealing with that culture.  Or, at the very least, that was my experience.  I knew this was the case before traveling there, bur it is especially clear in person.  

For me at least, this commercial oozes with a humble admission of failure that is consistent with their code of business honor.  There is a mea culpa and apology wrapped into one, and it has a sincerity about it that is profound.  And that profundity is even more pronounced in contrast to our culture of victimhood and casting blame everywhere by on one’s self.  I don’t believe an American auto maker would have the courage to make this kind of commercial.  In fact, I dare them to, on the next occasion of a recall on one of their cars.

Toyota still has a rocky road ahead.  Unhappy customers, lawsuits, and lost business await.  But the substance of this commercial, in its own small way, is an indication of a cultural bias toward making things right.  Thoroughly Japanese.

Super Bowl Logo

HERE is an interesting (at least it was to me as a marketer) article that gives the back story on the development of the logo for Super Bowl XLIV. 

Logos don’t just happen at the drawing board of a graphic artist, or more likely their computer.  There really is strategic thought and planning that goes into logo and service mark development.  And the article give a peek at some of that thinking.

And it hasn’t even aired yet!

One of my favorite parts of the Super Bowl is the first run of the myriad of expensive, high impact commercials.  Advertisers usually pull out their best stuff for this one day opportunity.  One ad that has stirred up considerable controversy is the ad featuring former University of Florida quarterback Tim Tebow.  Focus on the Family is behind the ad, the substance of which is a message that strongly favors a pro-life position.  But what is remarkable about all the hoopla and banter is the fact that apparently no one, apart from REAL insiders, has seen the ad.  The ruckus is largely over hearsay.

Sally Jenkins is a columnist for the Washington Post and also the author and/or co-author of several sports books, including the two written by/about Lance Armstrong and his recovery from cancer and his amazing accomplishments in the Tour de France.  Today, she has written a very thoughtful if not surprising article in the Post.  What is somewhat remarkable about this article, is that Jenkins would more than likely self-describe herself as a liberal and states in the article that is she is in favor of a woman’s right to murder her unborn.  Yet, she makes some wonderful points in this piece, while at the same time dressing down the feminists who have been so quick to deride the heretofore unseen commercial.

Here is her article.

A lesson I hope Obama won’t learn from “New Coke”

This year, the world will celebrate the 25th anniversary of both the death and resurrection of the familiar soft drink, Coca-Cola.  On June 25, 1985, The Coca-Cola Company introduced so-called New Coke.  The introduction was met with an unexpected public outcry.  What was hoped for, obviously, was a passionate embrace of a new product.  Instead, the company was assailed by unhappy consumers who began hoarding the original product before it became unavailable.  That unfavorable outcry ultimately resulted in the company returning the original formula to the marketplace on July 11, 1985 renamed Coca-Cola Classic, to stand beside New Coke.  I had the very real privilege of being an employee of The Coca-Cola Company during that time, albeit in their Minute Maid juice division.  Nevertheless, it did afford a bit of an insider’s view of some of what was going on in the minds of the decision makers.  It really was a fascinating process.

The catalyst for New Coke was statistical data that pointed objectively to a decline in market share for the product “Coca-Cola” when compared against a myriad of new beverage options.  This was compounded by the company’s own version of the Pepsi Challenge which did in fact indicate that in blind taste tests, consumers expressed a preference for the sweeter flavor of Pepsi Cola.  The numerical/statistical data seemed to point to an obvious conclusion…change the product to more closely meet consumer taste preferences.  What was never anticipated and therefore measured was consumer reaction to the kind of change that was proposed in replacing a familiar old product that would have celebrated its 100th birthday the following year.  As a result of that uproar, The Coca-Cola Company listened to its customers with a different set of ears, and while the statistical data was unassailable in its accuracy, the unmeasurable emotional attachment to the old product was almost instantly in view, and that is what ultimately won the day. 

There is a lesson to be learned here by President Obama and the democrat party in general.  The numerical/statistical data coming out of the 2008 General Election was conclusive on the surface.  The democrats won majorities in both houses of Congress, as well as the White House.  It would seem that these results indicated a mandate to proceed with their agenda.  And the democrats understood it in that way as well.  They quickly forged ahead with their hard-left policies that resulted in unprecedented spending leading to enormous deficits.  And they moved ahead with the take-over of what were formerly privately held enterprises, such as General Motors and attempted to convert what has been described elsewhere as 1/6th of the U.S. economy to a government controlled system of health care, much like what is present in Western Europe and Canada.

Consumers (voters) expressed their displeasure with these plans.   The so-called Tea Party movement and the raucous Town Hall meetings of the summer of 2009 were not something to be taken lightly, although it would seem that is exactly what the democrats did.  And in the fall of 2009 they continued to press ahead with their unpopular plans.  And by the elections in November of last year, several incumbent democrats were ejected by voters to be replaced by republicans.  And then, most recently, in the special election to fill the Senate seat of the late Edward Kennedy, republican Scott Brown expressly campaigned against the policies of the president and congressional democrats and won by a large margin.  Consumers (voters) were speaking.

But unlike the management of The Coca-Cola Company who were attentive to its customers and brought back the original formula of Coke, democrats and Obama in particular seem completely blind to the expressed preferences of the people who ultimately allow them to retain their current  jobs.  And while there have been a few voices of moderation, I am  not in the least bit convinced that the leaders of the democrat party get it.  And as November 2010 approaches, it will become increasingly clear whether or not they are willing to learn from the “apparent” lesson-by-the-numbers of the November 2008 General Election, but also learn from what is perhaps more nuanced expressions of the will of the voters as evidenced by what transpired in the summer of 2009, November 2009 and January 2010.  These are lessons that I hope they do not learn between now and being turned out later this year.

And for President Obama, another lesson that he might  learn from New Coke…It is no longer available.  It was found to be so unpopular that it was taken off the market.  2012 is coming.

Another run past “The Shack”

The Shack, written by William P. Young, has reached best-seller status and on some levels has almost achieved a cult-like following.  People claim that it has changed their spiritual lives.  I condescended to read The Shack almost a year and a half ago, because so many people, especially some of my much younger (college-aged) friends were so enchanted by it  and I sensed (I believe correctly) that I really needed to have first hand knowledge of the content of this book that seemed to have such an overwhelming influence on so many. 

I reviewed The Shack and expressed my concerns with what I had read, all the while conceding that if anything, it was a quick read and it had something of a sweet, sentimental message.  Still, my concerns far out weighed any positive things I might have had to say about the book.  You can read (or re-read) my review HERE.

My concerns aside, Al Mohler, President of Southern Seminary in Louisville, KY wrote an important article today about The Shack and the implications of its popularity on orthodox Christianity. Click HERE to read it.   His analysis is nothing short of brilliant.  The article is somewhat long, but I highly recommend it  to anyone who  holds a position of favorability for The Shack.

The conclusions that Mohler reaches ought to result in some serious soul-searching among those who are enthusiastic about The Shack and its fans must ask themselves if they, along with William P. Young, hold to the progressive (liberal) theology of universalism that seems to the thread that is woven throughout the book.  If you loved, or liked, or even mildly appreciated The Shack you need to read Mohler’s article and check yourself.  Do it!

Pat Robertson and Federal Headship

There has been a lot made of Pat Robertson’s comments last week about the disaster in Haiti, at least if measured by the number of Facebook updates and blog titles I have come across.  I have intentionally tried to steer clear of reading most of those, so if my comments below repeat things you have already heard or seen, I apologize.  But I assure you it is not for having simply regurgitated that which I have read elsewhere.  Here is the clip that is in question.

Several thoughts on what I heard.

1. There are indeed many occasions when Pat Robertson opens his mouth and removes one foot only to replace it with the other.  Nevertheless, he surely must have done some good for the kingdom over the course of his life in ministry.  While this latest incident marries very nicely with his occasional insensitivity, and maybe even ignorance, most notably around the time of 9/11, those of us who have never made some statement for which we have regrets, may go ahead and start throwing stones.
2. I wonder if there really is any truth, as Robertson says, that the Haitians actually swore a pact with the devil?  Is there some historical evidence of this “treaty”?  What is his source?  The only thing I found in my research (albeit limited) were some references to a voodoo priest making some such “deal”, but frankly, I was not able to determine with certainty if the article was serious, or if it was a parody.  At best, it sounds more like legend than fact.  Most of the other results from my searches were directly related to Robertson. 
3. Contrary to the murmuring on the internet, and the title of the You Tube video, I did not hear Robertson say that the devil directly caused the earthquake as a result of this supposed pact.  What I did hear is that the Haitian people have been “cursed by one thing after another” since they made their supposed deal.  
4. Irrespective of whether or not the Haitians made some sort of “pact” with the devil, a more important and even more long-lasting deal with him had already been struck on the Haitian’s behalf, as well as our own.  Our forefather,  Adam, made a deal with the devil, and by virtue of his office as federal head, that deal has been binding on Haitians and every other person (with one exception) who has walked on this earth.  All of creation groans under the terms of that deal.  As a result, mankind (and indeed all of creation ) has been “cursed by one thing after another.”  For Robertson to focus on the possibility of some more recent arrangement between the devil and the forefathers of the current Haitian people misses the whole point of scripture.
5. While we have a federal head who struck a deal that is binding on us, we have also struck deals the devil.    I believe, that God would refer to these deals as ”personal sins.”
6. Robertson is correct that our prayers for the Haitian people should include that there be a turning to God.  And that is excellent advise because, we have a second federal head in Jesus Christ, who has consummated another far better deal for those that the Father calls to be His own.

President Obama = Shameless

President Obama, while speaking at a church in Washington D.C. this morning, declared the following, with respect to a headline grabbing current event:

“It will be a victory for dignity and decency, and for our common humanity. It will be a victory for the United States of America.” (emphasis, mine)  Source:  Fox News.com

So, what is “It“?  When the President makes reference to “dignity” and “decency” and “common humanity,” one might assume he is referring to the overwhelming outpouring of concern for the people of Haiti, suffering through the earthquake that literally leveled their nation.  And that concern has been and still is being evidenced by the millions upon millions of dollars that have been donated to relief agencies and their efforts to address this human tragedy.

But NO!  The president is not talking about how Americans are digging into their own pockets to help people who they have never met and likely never will, who speak another language and who live hundreds of miles from the closest American city.  Instead, he is declaring that our “dignity” and “decency” and “common humanity” will be indicated by the extent to which a few hundred elected officials in Washington D.C. authorize the government to stick its hands in our pockets to fund the largest government take-over of a private market in our country’s history. 

To conclude that governmental redistribution of wealth is the indication of a people’s decency, rather than that same people’s voluntary benevolence, is the height of indecency. 

Mr. Obama, have you no shame?

You can be the judge.

As tempting as it might be to take the lead of Representative Joe Wilson (who called Barack Obama a “liar” during his address before a joint session of Congress last year), I will refrain from doing so.

HOWEVER, I will say that I think that the President’s pants (are) on fire!

HT:  Leigh for the video.

An exercise in missing the point.

Late last week, it was revealed that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made some “inartful” comments during the run up to the 2008 Presidential election.  The object of those comments was Barack Obama and the subject was Reid’s opinion that Obama’s light(er) complexion and his ability to turn on and off a “Negro dialect,” made him electable.  Attention has been given, justifiably, to Reid himself, but yesterday, something else that is very telling emerged.  And that is that President Obama thinks this whole matter is about HIM.

This clip has more content than is necessary to make the point, so I apologize for that, but I could not find one that narrows in on the specifics.  The section of this clip that I am thinking about starts at about 0:45 when Obama comments on the Reid matter.

The problem is that Obama (and his media apologists who are trying to make this go away), thinks Reid’s comments are exclusively about Obama.  I will grant you that the context of Reid’s comments DO, in fact, focus on Obama and his characteristics which Reid felt were to his electoral advantage.  But the implications of Reid’s comments have a broader reach and are not limited to just Obama and his particular complexion and manner of speech.

By implication, Reid is arguing that African-Americans who have more melanin in their skin and who speak with a distinctive African-American dialect, are not electable to the highest office in the  land.  Reid’s predisposition, as evidenced by his ”inartful” comments, is racist on its face.  How else could it possibly be characterized?  And Obama’s gracious gesture in characterizing these comments as being “in praise” of HIM, utterly misses that point.