Philanderpy

How good does a good deed have to be before it's considered…well, “good?” Earlier this week I was driving home from work, and I heard a commercial on the radio along these lines:

“Come join the lovely ladies of [some strip club] and help out Haiti. That’s right; for the next two weeks, you can get your altruism on in the most beautiful setting imaginable; We’re donating all cover charges to Haitian relief…”

Admittedly, I was not listening to radio marketed as “safe for the whole family" at the time, but I still did not see that coming. And I don’t begrudge the strippers or managers for wanting to help their neighbors in need; it just seems like an odd fund-raising technique. To be fair, strippers and their “regulars” may be very involved in any number of local charities, but I can’t imagine that men are drawn to strip clubs for the humanitarian relief.

Lap Dances for Haiti is an obvious and laughable target (and yes, that phrase was used to promote the campaign), but it did get me thinking about motives. As people constantly mixed in our motives, I wondered if there was any substantial difference between this marketing ploy and any other business promotions that trade on relief.

So what do you think; is it a difference of kind or degree? What separates the club that sells sex for charity and the donations of a boxing promoter who trades in violence or even the high end retailer that donates a portion of the proceeds from my over-priced designer wallet?

*If this post disappointed you, does it help or hurt to know that I refrained from using the original title, Debbie Does Charity Work?

What's Your Pop-Culture?

Director, John Hughes died at 59 yesterday. Hughes wrote, directed, and/or produced seemingly every iconic movie from the 80’s:

Sixteen Candles, The Breakfast Club, Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, National Lampoon’s Vacation, European Vacation, and Christmas Vacation, Pretty in Pink, Planes, Trains & Automobiles, The Great Outdoors, and Uncle Buck.

And, remembering all of these movies reminds me that, at 30, I’m already old...but this isn’t the first time I’ve realized this.

One of my friends made a joke at the expense of his 15-yr-old nephew by referring to him as “the new Ferris Bueller.” With simultaneous boredom and disgust, his nephew looked at him and said, “What’s that…Is that some band from the 90’s?”

Earlier this week, I sat down with a 20-something to watch Unforgiven (Best Picture 1992 starring Clint Eastwood, Morgan Freeman, & Gene Hackman). We are not that far apart in age, but he had never even heard of the movie, and he missed every reference or comparison to other movies I tried to make.

Everything worth hearing from me is stolen. So, admittedly inspired by questions raised in another blog (much more clever than this one) and an article by Chuck Klosterman (also referenced by said blog), I want to know what cutural content is required for you to be fluent among your own peer group.

Klosterman’s article and the related blog argued that ignoring cultural phenomena such as Harry Potter today is a conscious choice to become culturally illiterate and irrelevant tomorrow.

Now, all discussions of Potter aside, I want to know two things:

First, what pieces of pop-culture (music, movies, and TV) form a baseline for cultural literacy among your peers?

And second, what are the new classics? What recent releases (broadly recent; in the last 5-10 years) are the new pop-culture musts?

That's A Mores

Everyone acknowledges that social norms are illogical. That’s how Seinfeld and his famed “show about nothing” dominated Neilsen ratings for years, and eventually went out on top. [insert awkward Larry King interview here]

One I’ve considered for sometime is the American (especially Southern) premium on politeness. Politeness is probably THE chief virtue in the Southern US, and it trumps actual goodness or kindness almost every time. Kindness is only seen as kind as long as it is polite.

Exhibit A: After Ford was born, friends brought us dinners so that we didn’t have to cook. More often than not people would bring a portion of a meal that they had made for their family to eat that same night or the following night. After one of the meals, I woke up with an upset stomach and thought that I might be getting sick. And the part I feared most was not the actual illness. It was deciding whether or not I should tell the woman who brought the meal just in case I could prevent her family from eating the same meal and ending up with the same sickness.

My Dilemma: To tell the woman who brought the meal that it made me sick would be impolite; not because I’m insulting her ability to cook, but because it would make her feel bad to know that she had made me sick. If she was not going to eat that same meal the following night with her family, I would have had no dilemma. The polite thing to do is obvious—stay up all night and vomit, and then call her the next day and tell her the meal was delicious. But, what if I don’t tell her, and she eats the same meal the next night with her family? Then I could have prevented her family's illness, but chose not to in favor of being polite and receiving spoiled food with gratitude and Southern charm. It's ridiculous, but at 2 am I was actually torn about which was worse – being impolite or sparing a entire family from food poisoning.

So, what would you do? Culturally, which is worse being impolite or unkind?