Why Don't Millenial's Love God?

An interesting phenomenon has been affecting the Millennials. We, as a generation, have begun to renounce religion at historically high rates. This begs the question as to why. In a world where every natural disaster, famine, drought, and war are brought to us in the convenience of our own home, one would think that we might be more, not less interested, in seeking religious answers to mankind's continuing calamity. So what is the reason for you and I not placing the same trust in religion that our previous human brethren did?

A study by Pew Research looked at this issue in great detail. Their report said,

By some key measures, Americans ages 18 to 29 are considerably less religious than older Americans. Fewer young adults belong to any particular faith than older people do today. They also are less likely to be affiliated than their parents’ and grandparents’ generations were when they were young. Fully one-in-four members of the Millennial generation – so called because they were born after 1980 and began to come of age around the year 2000 – are unaffiliated with any particular faith. Indeed, Millennials are significantly more unaffiliated than members of Generation X were at a comparable point in their life cycle (20% in the late 1990s) and twice as unaffiliated as Baby Boomers were as young adults (13% in the late 1970s). Young adults also attend religious services less often than older Americans today. And compared with their elders today, fewer young people say that religion is very important in their lives.

If this is the new landscape of American religiosity what are the ramifications? Is our country destined to succumb to the wickedness of temptation, and resemble a 21st century Sodom and Gomorrah, simply waiting for the Lord's vengeance? I am of the opinion that this is unlikely, however I am prone to mistakes now and again. I personally view this growing lack of faith in religion as movement towards social liberation. In too many instances politics and public policy have been the brain child of religiously motivated individuals. Since the Millennial generation has begun to assert their voting power, a significant change in the direction of our country has begun to occur. One notable example is the wide spread acceptance of same-sex marriage. A graph by Pew Research illustrates this significant shift.

While I am only speculating there seems to be a correlation between lack of religious affiliation and new found acceptance of social issues. But what does does the future hold for other important policy issues as our generation begins to tackle them? What if, as the Millennial generation ages, we revert to more conservative attitudes? Will this tide of change become merely a high water mark only to be surpassed as our children begin their challenge of dictating the direction of our country?  Before we can begin to answer those questions we must first address why we have had a falling out with God? While one could postulate for days on end as to why this happened I believe there are several simple reasons.

As the Millennial generation came into age we grew up listening to case after case of the Catholic Church's pedophilia crisis. This scandal, for myself at least, put the juxtaposition of God and religion in front of my eyes. For many years, these two identities were seen as one. As goes God, goes the Church, and vice versa. Instead though, the hypocrisy of one cast the shadow of hypocrisy on the other. God was no more above judgment than religion. This series of scandals by the Catholic Church soured, in my opinion, many Millennial's attitudes about religion from an early age.

 Another major factor was the introduction of Jihad by Muslim extremists. Millennial's on one hand, saw the Catholic Church employing priests who were pedophiles, and on the other hand were watching their country being attacked by what some labeled as "holy warriors". There was not much left in the middle for us to wrap, what little faith we had left in god, around. In addition to these events we have seen religion used time and again, throughout the world, to do the bidding of men with guns. Rarely is it the rallying force of good, but instead a tool of manipulation by those in power. So if this is true, and the abuse of the religious institution is the culprit in my generation's relationship with a deity, why do we not love God? If we could separate one from the other, could we not still maintain a part of our heart to love our creator, whatever, or whoever that is? Perhaps some of us can, and in reality there are plenty of us who do. But for me myself, the church that proclaims God, is God himself. There is no separation between the two because they are one and the same. The hypocrisy of one only demonstrates the hypocrisy of the other.

So when the question arises, "why don't Millennial's love god?" I respond, "because God did not love us first" and then take a selfie.

Is Water Too Cheap?

Each day you and I are positive in the assumption that when the faucet is turned on, water will undoubtedly flow. This seemingly predictable fact of life has only been the reality for a short period of time historically speaking. For most of the history of human civilization, clean running water right into one's home was non-existent. It was not uncommon for battles to be fought over territory that contained rivers or lakes. This is due to the obvious, but often forgotten fact, that water is a necessity. Without it, life for all practical intensive purposes stops. However even knowing this history, and occasionally appreciating the availability of water, especially here in the United States, why the hell is it so cheap? Using my own monthly bills as an example my water costs per month are approximately $20-$25. But the question remains, is that too cheap? Should I pay more for the access to this essential ingredient to life? Or should Bill gates pay 18 dollars a gallon, and I pay pennies?

I have often wondered why, especially during a drought, does the cost of water not wildly fluctuate. Why doesn't the cost of water per gallon double, triple, or quadruple during a water shortage. Another important commodity, oil, reacts according to these basic economic principles of supply and demand, but water is something wholly different. Is this an adequate system that is currently in place? Should water allocated for essential uses be cheaper than water that is destined to fill a swimming pool? Would it be fair for wealthy people to pay more for their water than poor people? Is there a fundamental constitutional right to water? Finally, where does equitable payment for a necessary commodity come to terms with the necessity of the commodity that there is not enough of all the time? And at this intersection what are some potential solutions to help resolve whatever disparity may exist.

The idea of creating a "two-tier" water pricing system is not a new idea. The concept of charging more people when they have the means to pay is incorporated into our tax system, and has been a concept used repeatedly throughout human history. The www.sfgate.com discussed this idea and made some compelling arguments.

There are California water agencies that price water for residents in two tiers like a progressive income tax: The first tier is the least expensive. The problem isn't this initial allocation of water that people need for everyday essentials (sanitation, drinking and cooking). The problem is that the second tier of less essential water is too cheap. The price Californians pay for water doesn't reflect the risk involved in relying on the Sierra Nevada snowpack, rainy winters and the Colorado River. Any true cost of water must reflect this risk. If not, when there is a drought, the users are unprepared.

Not only should all California water agencies price water in two tiers, but they should be raising the price of less-essential water. In doing so, consumers will be able to choose how they want to conserve. Even more importantly, California's thousands of entrepreneurs have the incentive to improve, create and market water-efficient products and processes. Raising prices means that millions of consumers and thousands of entrepreneurs will be working on reducing water use instead of waiting for orders from the governor.

 So what if we, as a state, did do this? Setting aside the political maneuvering that would be required, is the fundamental idea worth entertaining? In my opinion the answer is unequivocally yes. Treating water like any other resource that is subject to the principles of productive and functioning markets would enable innovation to take root and thrive. In many instances government is not in the business of innovating novel solutions to complex problems. Government can be utilized as a funding source, but real success comes from financially motivated entrepreneurs. These men and women have the capacity, as proven throughout history, to solve problems while also making money. Creating a water conservation market that would incorporate both private and public business and institutions could achieve water usage goals and sustainability in California.

However, it would be irresponsible to continue down this line of reasoning without addressing the very real issue of a person's "right" to water. Not being a trained lawyer the question to this answer does not appear as clear cut. First, one has to agree or disagree that a person has a right to water. Second, if the answer is yes, how far does this right extend, and what can the law dictate to a water market, as to how much or little they can legally charge? According to the United Nations the "right to water" does exist. The United Nations resolution stated,

"The human right to water places certain responsibilities upon governments to ensure that people can enjoy "sufficient, safe, accessible and affordable water, without discrimination" 

An interesting phrase within the UN's definition is, "accessible and affordable water, without discrimination." Would a reasonable person claim that a two-tier water pricing is discriminatory, or simply practical? Or does "discrimination" only apply to water restrictions based on someone's religion, nationality, ethnicity, or sex? The wording of this right is ambiguous but it does lay a foundation to work off, if one makes certain assumptions. For the sake of argument, let say that discrimination only applies to instances where restricted water access is due to an individuals religion, nationality, ethnicity, or sex. If this is true than there is an argument to be made that a two tier water pricing system could in fact be legal, and also practical. In short, the status-quo of water usage and pricing has not kept up with the needs of the public as a whole.

In California more people live here than ever before, and the demands on the water supply, due to a variety of factors, has never been higher. The current policy of voluntary conservation, as pointed in the SFgate article, rarely if ever work. Additionally, the flat cost of water does not allow innovative market based conservation techniques to be utilized. A new approach needs to be taken when discussing water allocation, use, and cost. While a person does have a right to access affordable water, that doesn't necessarily mean that Warren Buffet and I need to pay the same price each time we flush our toilet, or fill up our cup.

Super Bowl Commercials and Glenn Beck: Is Coke-Cola Trying To Divide Us?

On one of the most important days in America, Super Bowl Sunday, citizens of this great country were subjected to perhaps one of the most built up, and then anti-climatic football games in the history of planet Earth. Thankfully however, we were able to enjoy the many Superbowl commercials that have come to epitomize this non-official national holiday. Most of the time these commercial come and go and I am left at the end still trying to determine what exactly they were selling. Then every now and again there is a commercial that is so beautifully simple that even though there is a multi-national corporation only trying to sell sugar water behind it (Coke-Cola) you still have to acknowledge that you are impressed.

One commercial in specific from this Super Bowl Sunday was this:
Coke-Cola Commercial Super Bowl 2014


As I am sure, about you and about a hundred million other people saw this ad. And the majority of us afterwards felt perhaps a little better about ourselves and our country. It was very interesting to see and hear such an inclusive rendition of one of our nation's most famous songs. Perhaps it was another step on the path towards recognizing equality of all Americans. However, as with any good thing, there always has to be one guy or gal, that somehow miss-interprets even the most basic message. Whether it was this commercial or even a passage from Obama's State of The Union speech, it is inevitable that concise clear messages will be placed out of context and used as propaganda so support someone else's point of view. In this case, political conservative television and radio pundit Glen Beck had his own , albeit strange, views on the "true" meaning of Coke-Cola's commercial. Salon.com's Elias Isquith reported on this,

During his radio show on Monday, Glenn Beck discussed the Coca-Cola Super Bowl ad that's got some conservatives threatenting a boycott. He hated it, of course. Beck said his first respsonse, when he saw the ad, was to ask, "Why?" "You need that to divide us, politically? 'Cause that;s all this ad is," He continued. After Beck's co-host, Pat Gray, chimed in, describing the as "in your face," Beck went further. "It's an in your face--and if you don't like it, if you're offended by it, then you're a racist. If you do like it, well then you're for immigration. That's what it is. You're for progress. That's all this is--is to divide people.

After having read Beck's response I was left just a bit confused.On one hand, Beck is arguing, if you are against the ad then you are racist, but if you are for the ad then you support immigration policy. This is a far to complex, and yet also to simplistic approach to take on this commercial. I do not believe that this commercial is trying to "divide" as at all. In fact I believe quite the opposite is true. This commercial is reminding this country of its long history of diversity, and furthermore the ability to coexist as one nation, for the most part, should be celebrated. Coke's choice to have multiple languages sing the song only reinforces the fact that it takes many types of people to make this country what it is today. This all inclusive attitude is one shared by many of the people that make up the Millennial generation. We have grown up in schools, and also in work, interacting with all different types of people. The racism so prevalent in the early to mid part of the 20th century seems like an alien concept to us. However, we are also not so naive to think that racism itself has been eradicated. It still exists and it still affects people on an everyday basis. That being said, we as a country have progressed more on this issue that at any point in our history, and any claim that a Coke-Cola commercial was intended to "divide" us it just flat out wrong.

So even though the actual Super Bowl was a bust, the commercials, and Coke's in particular, was worth the three hours I spent sitting in my over-stuffed chair. Rock on America and next time I want to hear the National Anthem sung in seven different languages!

The Role Of The Public Intellectual

The pre-requisite to any conversation is a foundational thesis from which to build off. The term public intellectual can mean many different things to many different people. However, professor Stephen Mack’s view on the role and duties of a public intellectual concisely articulates what will be the thesis of this post. Professor Mack wrote,

            “It is also, however, the obligation of every citizen in a democracy. Trained to it or not, all participants in self-government are duty bound to prod, poke, and pester the powerful intuitions that would shape their lives. And so if public intellectuals have any role to play in a democracy-and they do-it’s simply to keep the pot boiling. The measure of public intellectuals work is not whether the people are listening, but whether they’re hearing things worth talking about.”

            Now that the term public intellectual is defined, how does it relate to us now in America? Do we have a history of this public discourse being guided by intelligent and thoughtful citizens? And what does the current scene of public intellectuals currently consist of?

            Arguably the role of the public intellectual in the construction of our country lies somewhere between a critical and a necessary component without which, we might still be British citizens or a plethora of separate entities living on the same continent. Thomas Paine, James Madison, and others all played this critical role of public intellectual in the beginning of the great experiment, which came to be known as America. Now this role has left the hands of a few articulate men and is currently dominated by a wide range of men and women from all different backgrounds and ages. One particularly interesting person to focus on today is a fellow Millennial, named Ezra Klein.

            This 21^st century public intellectual did not plan on becoming a member of this historical association, but instead stumbled into the role with the help of the internet. Klein was born on May 9^th, 1984. He first attended University of California at Santa Cruz before deciding to transfer and complete his degree at University of California at Los Angeles. When attending UCLA, Klein recalls that his application to write for the university’s daily newspaper, the Daily Bruin, was rejected. Instead of accepting his writing career as over, he pushed forward into the new frontier, and arguably, the new medium of the public intellectual. The internet, and blogging specifically, removed the high barriers of entry to an aspiring pubic intellectual. The necessity of first achieving vast name recognition and publishing volumes of book were systematically dismantled by the introduction of the blogosphere. Anyone who was willing to tackle tough issues and stack wood under the fire of current debate topics would have a chance at ascending the ladder into the position of public intellectual.

            Although the internet does provide perhaps one of the last remaining arenas of true equality, it also does present the issue of the conversation being watered down by the sheer number of opinions that are able to weigh in on every issue. In Ezra Klein’s case his ability to thoughtfully deconstruct complex issues and present them to the public in a concise manner does provide a public good, but he is also only 30. Perhaps the celebratory trumpet has been sounded to early in his case? Is it not worth wondering that his self-constructed platform is perhaps too powerful? Furthermore, what makes him necessarily right in his writing or his actions? All are good questions worth considering, but to counter them one must also ask, are any of those aforementioned inquiries even relevant?

            Again to quote Professor Mack, “…the public intellectual function is criticism. And if intellectuals are in a better position to perform that function it’s not because they are uniquely blessed with wisdom—and it’s certainly not because they are uniquely equipped to wield social or political power. It is only because learning the process of criticism and practicing them with some regularity are requisites for intellectual employment."

In short, public intellectuals should be willing to say the things that need to be said. They, like the Supreme Court at times, function as a safety valve on society. The politics of legislating consistently dampen the ability to be forthright with the American public. This inhibits most politicians’ ability to be viewed as non-political observers even as hard as they try. The public intellectual fills this void of trust by voicing criticism on policy that is not being drafted, and also policy that was written with allegedly invidious intentions. However, to truly maintain the title of public intellectual, he or she at times has to rise above their ideological perspective and view the issues from an objective standpoint. At face value this talent could be construed as a necessity to an all-encompassing democratic conversation. However, one might argue that this objective perspective might do greater harm in the long run for the conversation and country as a whole.

            An example of Ezra Klein attempting to perform the balancing act of being a progressive supporter of liberal policy and remaining true to his objective views as a public intellectual were highlighted in the recent rollout of the Affordable Healthcare Act. As most know, the initial implementation of the healthcare act was rocky to say the least. Most of the problems were the result of the online market systems being unable to process even small numbers of customers, and also the website as a whole was slow, unresponsive, and unreliable. There is a large amount of anecdotal evidence of citizens attempting to purchase new affordable healthcare; the very system which was advertised as their medical salvation could in fact not perform even the basic tasks of a website. Klein observed all of this from his blogging platform and spoke out on it. Bear in mind that his liberal ideology is no secret, so his comments tested the limits of where progressive supporter ends and political intellectual begins. Klein wrote,

             "In the months before the launch almost every senior member of the Obama administration had a little calendar board tacked up in a prominent spot in their office. "75 days until Obamacare" it would say. The next morning they would tear off the page. "74 days until Obamacare" it would say. The message -- to them and to their visitors -- was clear: This was the White House's top priority.

We're now negative 14 days until the Affordable Care Act and most people still can't purchase insurance. The magnitude of this failure is stunning. Yes, the federal health-care law is a complicated project, government it rules are a mess, and the scrutiny has been overwhelming. But the Obama administration knew all that going in. They should've been able to build an online portal that works."

            All to clearly Klein had voiced his objections too the roll out thus far. But in the long run, would not showing restraint in his scathing criticism be in the best interest of his chosen political leanings? Could he have merely commented that the rollout was not going as planned, and that was to be expected when introducing a new large and complex federal program? Had this been the chosen route, he would have addressed the problems, but would not have kept the “pot boiling” so to speak.  If he did show deference to the “bigger picture” would he then be rejecting his responsibility as a public intellectual whose job is to criticize? Or is the bigger picture the continuation of a tradition that allows public intellectuals to criticize non-discriminately for the greater good?

            Joan Walsh, a fellow liberal and respected blogger, identified these conflicting interests displayed by Klein and commented on them herself. She wrote,

            "Don’t get me wrong: The problems with Healthcare.gov are real, and disturbing, and must be fixed asap. (Think Progress has a dispassionate assessment here.) But excuse me if I believe the president knows that without my telling him. It’s like watching the 21st century version of the rise of the Democratic Leadership Council, and I feel the way I did back then: On the one hand, yes, it’s important for Democrats to acknowledge when government screws up, and to fix it.

On the other hand, when liberals rush conscientiously to do that, they only encourage the completely unbalanced and unhinged coverage of whatever the problem may be."

Walsh’s view here seems to suggest that when an individual is in a position to voice public concern, that he or she might resist the temptation to in recognition that their actions could cause more harm than good from a political perspective.

However, pursuant to the accepted definition of a public intellectual, any actions less than criticism, as displayed by Klein, would be in direct contrast to his higher responsibilities. Loyalty to an ideology must be submissive to the loyalty of honest public debate when fulfilling the role of a public intellectual.

            This example is illustrative of the public service an intellectual can bring to society. Klein’s decision to focus on the flaws of the healthcare roll out does not hurt the law. In fact, his criticism only helps ensure the success of this legislation because his writing will bring about a focused correction-driven response. If Klein had not kept putting gasoline on the fire perhaps less attention would have been paid to the problem. Due to his chosen liberal ideology his criticism can be viewed as an honest, non-partisan, critique of the roll out.

            Public intellectuals will continue to play a positive role in society. Their service is an essential component of a self-governing democratic country. An article by David Palumbo-liu, titled, The Public Intellectual as Provocateur, highlighted an interesting benefit of the internet that promotes the discussions between vast amounts of people. David wrote,

            "The internet links people and their ideas in unprecedented ways. The question as the critic Howard Rheingold put it, is not only how we use this capacity smartly, but also why we should: If we combine our individual efforts wisely, enough of the right know-how could add up to a more thoughtful society as well as enhance those individuals who master digital network skills. Web 2.0 impresario Tim O’Reilly claims that the secret sauce behind Google, Wikipedia, and the Web itself is the “architecture of participation”, enabling countless small acts of self-interest like publishing a web page or sharing a link to add up to a public good that enriches everybody."

            As this passage illustrates, the public intellectual is not a role commanded by only a few men. It is now a societal responsibility and the internet provides each and every person to thoughtfully weigh in on the current issues. This new acceptance of diverse opinion, thoughts, and analysis does not necessarily lessen the importance of the public intellectual, but instead it spreads the weight of responsibility around. Each person is entitled to the megaphone of the internet to use however he or she likes. While in many instances people will simply keep their headphones plugged in and ignore the periphery noises, occasionally an individual, with a thoughtful message, will break through. Ezra Klein is an example of one of these outliers making their way in. The public intellectual is anybody and also nobody. It is everyone and also just someone. Journalists and academics no longer monopolize the medium that historically broadcasted the public conversation. It is open to any and all who want to use it. This is only beneficial to the greater good of society, and I for one am proud of a fellow millennial grabbing his megaphone, throwing gas on the fire, and keeping the debate moving forward.