Thursday, August 5, A.D. 2010

The Pizza Turnaround

I still have not tried Domino’s new pizza, but I like the short company documentary about the project: “The Pizza Turnaround.” You may watch it below:

It is easy to forget that there are many real people behind every product sold, every ware peddled. Mass production obfuscates the human side of industry. Of course, the public relations team at Domino’s wants to humanize the company to the veiwers of the video for business purposes, but it is nonetheless true that workers—even the human cogs of the modern industrial machine—tend to see their products as something intimately connected with themselves. My uncle who worked at General Motors on the line felt that he was a part of the automobiles of G.M. His job was not simply a wage to him; it was an identity. Perhaps, many factory workers do not take pride in their work and only put in their time to earn a wage, but the view that wage earning is the height of noble work available in mass production is an upper class conceit. Such an opinion does not come from the workers, themselves. Men crave meaning, and the lower classes seek relevance in their action as much as upper class, educated men.

This spring, I had a conversation with a wealthy young man who thought that the lives of the masses were worthless and that it was the purpose of the state to bring dignity to the proletariat through educational and artistic programs. Do all socialists believe such—that life is not worth living unless one attends an Ivy League university and has season tickets to the symphony? Socrates may have been correct to state that the unexamined life is not worth living—for himself and for the philosophically oriented—but I find it ridiculous to reduce the lives of all men lesser than Socrates to dust. Even the peasant in the fields may find joy and fulfillment in life. There is no shortage of opportunities to experience the splendor of God, even in the meanest of circumstances. Moral evil and destitution that endangers survival take their toll on the soul of man, but the dearth of riches robs no one of contentment. A beautiful soul may even live a good life making pizza.

Posted by Joseph on Thursday, August 5, Anno Domini 2010
Capitalism • Food • Restaurants • (0) Comments • Permalink

Thursday, August 6, A.D. 2009

Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream

When my father and I were in Vermont last week, we went on the Ben & Jerry’s factory tour in Waterbury. I knew that wandering through Peacenik Vermont would be a culture shock, but I insisted in indulging in some anthropological field work.

The factory was full of colorful eye candy, the tour was efficiently conducted and informative, and we were able to sample one of the ice cream flavors being processed that day (Oatmeal Cookie Chunk, which was quite tasty). It was definitely worth the stop.

The flavors are great. Yet, something annoys me about Ben & Jerry’s “progressive” company.

Now, I do not have a problem with its company mission. Indeed, I think that its three part mission statement is an admirable example for corporate America. The three parts are the social mission (being a responsible corporate member of the community), the product mission (developing and maintaining excellent products), and the economic mission (being a sustainable, profitable company for shareholders that offers opportunities for workers). I think that the last two are necessary considerations for any business, whereas many capitalists only concern themselves with the last one and subsume other considerations as merely instrumental ways to further profitability. In contrast to them, I think that the production of goods ought to aim at excellence in the product even without consideration of profit, while, of course, realizing that at a certain point one’s striving for a better product could sacrifice necessary profitability. My point is that businesses should consider both as natural ends for their activity.

I am not so sure that I agree with the “social mission,” thinking that “social justice” is an individual matter rather than business’s business. A company improves its community by employing people with honest work and fair pay. It ought to be responsible with the natural and cultural resources that its uses. Beyond that, I think that Ben & Jerry’s social activism would be better carried out by Ben and Jerry as individuals or through their charitable foundation. “Corporate charity” does cause confusion about the proper role of businesses and about the true nature of charity, in my opinion. However, it’s their company, and it certainly isn’t doing bad things.

So, what is so objectionable about these left-wing Vermonters? They shamelessly display their obnoxious, Leftist preachiness. At the factory and in every one of their ice cream parlors, one encounters in every direction the self-righteous, smug back-patting that I find so distasteful among Leftists. Signs, brochures, product design, and wall paintings all invite the snarky observer to scream out, “Good for you!” à la South Park.

What is with these latter day righteous crusaders? From folks who seem quite sensitive to the “holier than thou” attitudes of arrogant Christians, one would expect more discretion and humility.

I suspect that Ben, Jerry, and their pals would defend their self-glorification as an “awareness” campaign: “See, we do our part, and you can do your part, too.” I see the point, but I don’t believe it. Rather, I think that we see in them the secularized traits of their “divinely elected” ancestors’ spiritual prelest. For Yankee Leftists, their green communities are the City on a Hill, and their social justice activism are signs of their election. Not to preach the gospel of global warming, recycling, clean energy, and anti-racism would be to hide one’s light under a bushel. Instead, let your light shine before men—and remember to contribute to the D.N.C.

Posted by Joseph on Thursday, August 6, Anno Domini 2009
Capitalism • Food • (1) Comments • Permalink

Saturday, February 21, A.D. 2009

Ave Maria Funds

The stock market has plunged over the past year, and everyone wants to know if it has hit bottom, yet. I have no idea, and I do not have much confidence in anyone else’s opinion on the matter, either. Americans want to consume more than they produce, and we have an economically incompetent government. Who knows how much the market can bear even as a bear?

However, if you suspect that it can only get better, then it is time to purchase stocks when they are cheaper. If you do not have your own broker, you may wish to build your own portfolio with TradeKing or ING Direct’s ShareBuilder. Some companies even sell stock directly, usually through an automatic monthly share purchasing program in which you can enroll.

If you would rather invest in a mutual fund, then you may wish to consider Ave Maria Funds. I invested a bit in the Ave Maria Growth Fund (AVEGX) and in the Ave Maria Catholic Values Fund (AVEMX) four years ago, and until last year, I was pleased with the return. However, I am back to three quarters of my initial investment because the market’s dive in A.D. 2008 wiped out half of my funds’ worth. Hopefully, it will bounce back.

The Ave Maria Funds are like any other mutual fund except that the investors do not purchase stock in companies that violate the basic social teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. They do not purchase stock in companies that support or profit from abortion services, abortion rights political activities, pornography, and attempts to undermine traditional marriage. So, if you are concerned about indirectly promoting the enemies of civilization through your investments, Ave Maria Funds might be for you.

The Schwartz Investment Council handles the Wall Street element, while the Roman Catholic advisory board includes all around intellectual Michael Novak, economist, investor, and National Review’s editor Lawrence Kudlow, Domino’s Pizza founder and philanthropist Thomas Monaghan, Eagle Forum’s Phyllis Schlafly, Notre Dame coach Lou Holtz, and the Latin Archbishop of Detroit Adam Cardinal Maida. The investors simply exclude the companies that the advisory board marks as unsuitable, and they manage the funds accordingly.

Posted by Joseph on Saturday, February 21, Anno Domini 2009
Capitalism • Services • (0) Comments • Permalink

Tuesday, February 3, A.D. 2009

Super Bowl Advertisements

I hope that you enjoyed Sunday’s Super Bowl. Though not a football fan myself, it was quite a game. I am sure that my Steelers hating sister is not pleased with the result, but she must have at least enjoyed the commercials.

I actually enjoy commercials—if they are enjoyable. I realize that advertising is manipulation, but it is supposed to be. I find it slimy when (non-advertisement) cartoons sell a product, but I acknowledge my gratitude for any aesthetic or comedic pleasure received while watching commercials. For they are supervenient gifts. Besides, they allow creative people to exercise their talents. As I wrote in “Disney the Corrupter of Youth?,” one should not reduce a commercial product to its money making end.

Dr. Roy Eappen’s Tory Dr. Roy blog features some of his favorite forty-third Super Bowl ads, and I am copying his idea. However, I must first present my favorite Super Bowl ad of all time—E.D.S.‘s “Herding Cats” commercial from A.D. 2000:

For this year’s crop, YouTube has a Super Bowl channel, AdBlitz 2009, where you can watch all of the commercials online. Here are my recommended ads, with the year’s best at the end.

Budweiser more than any other company owns the Super Bowl ad legacy. The company’s annual commercials often allude to its past ads, which is brilliant marketing. Most viewers are already familiar with the previous ads, and these folks are pleased when they encounter something that they already know—for men are a lot like dogs, as Socrates long ago noted. In addition to the familiarity, nostalgia trip, and traditional annual ritual—all of which complement well Budweiser’s marketed image—these ads that span years have the further advantage of bringing the imagery and force of the previous ads to the attention of the viewers of this year’s ad for the same price of one time slot.

I do not accept Hume’s epistemology, but he is certainly correct when he notes that the mind more readily remembers things vividly when such things are strengthened and reinforced by other impressions that the mind relates to them. This explains one of the advantages of specialization. Your mind remembers things better when it always attends to them and to things that your mind relates to them. Constant employment makes sets of memories fresh. So, when we watch the following horse and Dalmatian ad, we think of the past horse and Dalmatian ads in our memory and add to them. The more related memories, the more vivacity such memories will have—and the more influence.

Besides the clever ad legacy, the horse and dog ads feature horses and dogs! Throw in some lovely countryside, ideal weather, and an honest hard-working representative of “real America” (you know, the America with Sarah Palin’s small town values), and I’m won over. This year’s horse and dog legacy ad is “Stick.” Budweiser made a few other horse and dog ads this year, but “Generations” and “Circus” are not in the same genre as the standard horse and dog legacy commercials from the last decade.

In my opinion, the funniest ad this year belongs to CareerBuilder. It is artful, irreverent, a little witty, and wonderfully foolish. The “loads of money” exception is golden. Humor is born from the unexpected.

The lowbrow part of my soul finds the GoDaddy “Enhancements” ad with Danica Patrick amusing. It is stupid and trashy, but I laugh when the slattern at the end stands up. Comedy that is moderately dumb annoys me, but I have a soft spot for the utterly ridiculous.

I also like Cheetos’ “Spoiled Girl.” Perhaps misogyny has something to do with my taste for this one (and the previous), but it is quite fun to see bimbohood simultaneously exploited and mocked.

I suppose that Super Bowl ads in general do not treat women very, um, augustly. Perhaps, this is men’s pay back for having to be ridiculed constantly for the rest of the year. For all those longsuffering husbands, I offer Bridgestone’s “Taters”:

Patriotism, beer, chauvinism, and random acts of violence against men are all Super Bowl regulars—along with trucks. I have never understood the truck fetish, and I laugh at truck ads’ embarrassing attempts at masculinization. Nonetheless, the following commercial is pretty neat because it is real. The part of the hillbilly soul that monster truck shows entice responds with a hearty “Woah!” to this:

I think that I really dislike General Electric’s “Scarecrow” ad, but it intrigues me, nonetheless. Lover of sights and sounds that I am, the imagery captures my fancy, but the ad just does not make sense. Indeed, it does violence to The Wizard of Oz. There is no meaningful connection between the referrer and the referent.

I also feel ambivalent about Frosted Flakes’ “Plant a Seed” ad. It is both a visual treat and an annoyingly schmaltzy example of charitable posing. What is up with the creepy shadow of Tony the Tiger? Does the gradual introduction of Kellogg’s cat hint of Tony’ transcendence, the immediate epiphany of which would jar the viewers? For the love of Snap, Crackle, and Pop!

For anthropological reasons, no commercial this year is more interesting than Coca-Cola’s “Avatar” ad. What does it say about our culture, and what does our culture’s interpretation of what it says say about our culture?

As you can see in the “Avatar” ad, the production value of Coke’s ads is outstanding. It’s the Super Bowl, and people deserve to be wowed. Accordingly, I do not think that there is a real contest for the best Super Bowl ad this year. Coca-Cola’s “Heist” is really, totally, amazingly cool:

Buy, buy, buy . . .

Posted by Joseph on Tuesday, February 3, Anno Domini 2009
Capitalism • (0) Comments • Permalink

Monday, December 1, A.D. 2008

Disney the Corrupter of Youth?

Black Friday has passed and, even in our recession, my fellow Americans have worked themselves into a consumerist frenzy as part of their holiday season tradition. Materialism is alive and well in the West, even as we live well beyond our means and burn the candle at both ends.

I am psychologically (and perhaps genetically) pre-disposed to agree with condemnations of conspicuous consumption. For all its defects, America’s puritanical WASP ancestry, from Plymouth to Coolidge, knew the value of work, savings, and living within one’s means. How is it that such a society as ours could sink so quickly into irresponsible self-indulgence? History is full of wise fathers and foolish sons, though, as Socrates remarked about Pericles. With these melancholy thoughts, I offer some articles for you to read.

First, I cannot recommend the City Journal enough. The publication always has thoughtful, well written commentary on public matters. One of their frequent contributors is Anthony Daniels, who writes under the name Theodore Dalrymple. He is a retired British physician and psychiatrist with a lifetime of experience in studying man and his problems, often among the United Kingdom’s less refined populations. I had the pleasure to meet him once, and I found him remarkably warm and, to use the colloquial term, real. My father has become a fan of his writing, and I encourage everyone to read his books and essays. His recent article in City Journal—“The Quivering Upper Lip”—concerns Britain’s radical cultural transformation in the last few generations. According to Daniels, America is in much safer waters than her mother across the pond. It is both hard and flattering for a nay-saying cultural critic to hear praise of one’s society from such a fellow. How terrible Albion has become if England is worse than we are. It contradicts our nearly universal but unstated belief in English superiority—America’s form of false consciousness, I assume.

Second, and contra Daniels, one can always depend on Pat Buchanan to dispirit one’s hope in cultural renewal. His current article “Socialist Republic” depicts what loose living and fiscal insanity portend for us down the road.

However, what I really wish to address in this post is an article in The Daily Telegraph about an English abbot’s denunciation of America’s very own secular cultural guidepost, “Disney accused by Catholic cleric of corrupting children’s minds,” by Jonathan Wynne-Jones:

Christopher Jamison, the Abbot of Worth in West Sussex, has accused the corporation of “exploiting spirituality” to sell its products and of turning Disneyland into a modern day pilgrimage site.

He argues that it pretends to provide stories with a moral message, but has actually helped to create a more materialistic culture. . . .

While he acknowledges that Disney stories carry messages showing good triumphing over evil, he argues this is part of a ploy to persuade people that they should buy Disney products in order to be “a good and happy family”. . . .

“The message behind every movie and book, behind every theme park and T-shirt is that our children’s world needs Disney,” he says. . . .

He continues: “This is the new pilgrimage that children desire, a rite of passage into the meaning of life according to Disney.

“Where once morality and meaning were available as part of our free cultural inheritance, now corporations sell them to us as products.”

Fr Jamison, who is one of Britain’s most prominent Catholic clerics, claims that brands such as Disney market themselves to be about more than mere materialism to create an addiction to consumption.

“This is basically the commercial exploitation of spirituality,” he says, adding that as a result Disney and other corporations “inhabit our imagination”.

“Once planted there they can make us endlessly greedy. And that is exactly what they are doing.”

Before commenting on main point of the article, I wish to point out how utterly horrifying it must be for the aforementioned Anthony Daniels that Britain has a “Happiness Tsar”: “In 2006, Lord Layard, the Government’s ‘happiness Tsar’, urged for a rethink of economic and social policy after concluding that the pursuit of financial success has led to a rise in depression and emotional impoverishment.” The very sound of it exudes the stench of social disease. Andrew and other freakish devotees of Doctor Who will undoubtedly think of “The Happiness Patrol.” Such a promising idea for social criticism, such incompetent and artless execution . . . Anyway, the Brits surely have lost their wits if they think that mindless democratically supported bureaucracy can address human happiness when it cannot even maintain civil order on the streets.

As for Disney, I have long had mixed feelings. As a child, I loved Disney’s cartoons, from the old “princess classics” to my favorite, The Sword in the Stone. Then, as a teenager, I read about Tolkien’s condemnation of Disney’s marring of traditional mythoi. Like my medieval ancestors, I was torn between the values of my culture and the words of an auctor.

I think that Tolkien’s criticism holds up, but Disney is still a treasure of artistic and cultural goods. Could we reasonably expect a liberal commercial people to embrace completely the values of the old regime? We are lucky to have chivalry depicted in our popular culture at all, even if it is mixed with a fair bit of bourgeois sentimentality and, more recently, contemporary feminist and multicultural onanism.

As for the good abbot’s criticism of Disney as evangelist for consumerism, I am not so sure. Certainly, consumerism is rampant and ugly, but I do not know why this aspect of modern people with too much money and too confused priorities should completely define Disney. Of course, the company capitalizes on merchandise—nations of shopkeepers always find ways to exploit situations for money. Yet, to dismiss Disney because of this has the faint smell of Marx’s critique of religion as the opium of the masses. Similar illogic plays in both attacks.

I watched a fascinating but revolting documentary a year or so ago about marketing to children, but I cannot remember the name. The program argued that companies manipulate children to determine their parents’ spending behavior. I believe that the documentary even stated that some cartoons were produced with the intention of selling merchandise. Obviously, the coin counters at Disney have mastered that game. Nonetheless, we cannot reduce the artistic product to the merchandising, even if, in one sense, the chief reason for the product’s existence is the merchandise. For there were writers and animators who crafted a piece of art. Their efforts may have been commissioned, facilitated, and perhaps even directed by the coin counters, but their actions as producers of art are not identical to their actions as money-makers for the company.

The abbot’s criticism could be applied to any human undertaking that coexists with paid work. We who find the coin counters merely pallid shades of real manhood hope that artists create art for the love of such creation and that teachers disseminate their learning for the love of knowledge. Yet, for most artists and teachers, their work has some component of wage-earning, as well. Unless one is rich, one has to pay for shelter and victuals. A person has to feed his children. Consider the history of art, and you will quickly see how most of the revered masters worked for commission. I think that it is clear that their work far transcends simply the desire to pay the bills, but practical matters matter in our human life of scarcity.

Perhaps, the abbot has a point about Disney the company—the commodification of culture in the age of mass production is disgusting. However, fine works can come from sordid circumstances. The nineteenth century amply supplies examples. Moreover, we should ponder the difficulties that underlie this issue. What is the end of production? Is it simply money-making, or are there other proper ends for human endeavors that may earn a living?

Posted by Joseph on Monday, December 1, Anno Domini 2008
Capitalism • (0) Comments • Permalink

Monday, October 6, A.D. 2008

Business Is Good

In this realm, I’ll review products and services from the commercial sector. The links or “blogroll” on the left are to various companies from around the world.

I am very fond of small business, and I frequently spend my money at “mom and pop” establishments. However, I also admire success stories and tremendous displays of commercial power. So, even as Walmart makes every American small town another nest to lay its spiderlings, the part of my soul that enjoys the scene of a mighty army conquering everything in its path smiles a bit at its display of raw capitalist power. Moreover, excellence in commerce means many things, including making available the demanded goods to a given market in as an efficient manner as possible. “The Walmart” achieves this remarkably in making available inexpensive products to the American masses at the lowest cost. Read defenses of Walmart by Jay Nordlinger and Rich Lowry.

The companies linked on the left and others to be reviewed later make my list by their similarly admirable commercial success. Their place here is due to one or more of the following: commercial success, great products and services, iconic status in American or global commerce, uniqueness, and responsible commercial practices (a deserved toss to the Lefties). I also emphasize the superb companies from Cincinnati.

Posted by Joseph on Monday, October 6, Anno Domini 2008
Capitalism • (0) Comments • Permalink