September-2005

WELCOME to the Ark of Mark.  In our last visit we discussed the troubling decision by the Kohler Company to choose the curious and potentially disgusting name "Memoirs" for one of its toilets.  In a sincere spirit of understanding, I emailed Kohler to ask if maybe I was just missing something.  I have reproduced our actual exchange below.  This really happened:

Mark:

I'm sorry to take up your time with a question like this, but maybe you can email me the answer.  I hate to even bring this up, but do you really think Memoirs is an appropriate name for a toilet?  Was this chosen just because it sounds nice without really considering what sorts of memoirs are actually associated with toilets?  Or is there some other connotation I'm missing?  Again, sorry to take up your time, but I'm  sincerely curious. Thanks.

Here is Kohler's actual reply:

Thank you for contacting Kohler.  I do understand that Memoirs is an "odd" name for a toilet, however the name was chosen for the entire suite of products, including faucets, baths, whirlpools, sinks and accessories.  I am not sure how the designer came up with the name, however we describe the suite as follows; "The sophistication of traditional design serves as the inspiration for the Memoirs Suite. With its rich detailing, this suite of products echo the stylized lines of historically renowned furniture and
architectural design. Two styles offer different dignified interpretations - the clean, crisp lines of the Stately design, and the added rounded detail of the Classic style, which resembles crown molding. With fixtures and faucets available, the extensive Memoirs Suite can accommodate both large and small bath and powder rooms."  I am unsure if this response has fully answered your question, and if it has not, feel free to contact me again. Thank you for your interest in Kohler products.  Lisa W

Frankly, I was impressed by Lisa's earnest reply.  It makes sense knowing that this name was given to a suite of products (although I still think they should give special consideration to toilets when giving a name to a suite of products).  It almost makes me regret having chosen another brand of toilet.  I will just have to come to terms with missing out on the dignified interpretations of historically renowned furniture and architectural design that served as the inspiration for the sophisticated traditional design of the Memoirs suite.  Alas.

**********

My wife recently purchased a shirt that included a tag with the following message:

The occasional slubs and gentle shadings in this fabric should not be regarded as defects.  They are characteristic of the fine yarns which give this fabric its beauty and dramatic texture.

I absolutely love this tag.  First of all, I love this tag because it is the only tag that has inspired me to visit www.dictionary.com.

slub (n):  A soft thick nub in yarn that is either an imperfection or purposely set for a desired effect.

I am making it a point to start working "slub" into as many casual conversations as I can.  Consider the following possible scene from a business meeting:

CO-WORKER:  Hi, Mark.  How are you?
MARK (thoughtfully rubbing shirt fabric):  Well, I'm just not sure.
CO-WORKER:  Why?  What's wrong?
MARK:  I think I may be developing a slub.
CO-WORKER:

The main reason I love this tag is its overall attitude.  The tag is basically saying, If you think something is wrong with this shirt it's only because this was made with FINE yarn and you're too UNREFINED to know the difference between a flaw and a feature.  You will wear this shirt and like it or we will come to your house and forcibly take it from you and give it to somebody with sufficient class to appreciate it.  One wonders how many meek shirt-owners are self-consciously wearing slub-riddled clothing because this tag has intimidated them into accepting a shirt with real problems.

The tag has inspired me to consider using the following statement as a footnote to all my columns:

The occasional flubs and grammatical mistakes in this column should not be regarded as shortcomings on the part of the author.  They are characteristic of the purposeful homespun tone the author takes and are what gives the column its beauty and dramatic texture.  Just as you cannot understand why Andy Warhol's paintings of Campbell's soup cans are so great, you are similarly incapable of comprehending the many levels of genius displayed in this work.  If anything contained herein sounds stupid it reflects poorly on you alone.

**********

SOMETHING THERE IS THAT LOVES A WALL?

The phrase "separation of church and state" has been drubbed into the consciousness of the American people so deeply that I doubt most people realize the phrase is not in the United States Constitution.  The phrase came from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in which he mentioned a "wall of separation between church and state."  The actual First Amendment states that:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

In other words, our government can't establish a state religion.  I'm quite happy about this.  My confidence in government bureaucratic oversight can be summed up in three words:  New Orleans Levees.  I truly believe the USA is the greatest nation in the history of mankind, but I shudder to imagine what a state-run religion would look like.  The Bible would end up resembling the federal tax code.  And the meek shall inherit the earth, provided their non-adjusted railroad or farm wages do not exceed the value on line 7C on Form 1768.

Most Americans would agree the First Amendment is a pretty swell idea.  Where things get sticky is with the word "establishment."  Can the government decree that all US citizens must declare allegiance to any one of the top five religions?  No way.  Can I go to any church I want next Sunday?  Absolutely.  Can a small town in the Bible belt allow a private group of citizens to construct a manger scene on the courthouse lawn each December to be enjoyed by many citizens, ignored by some, and offensive to a few?  It sounds okay to me, but it really depends on the interpretation of "establishment of religion."  Loud contingencies of people get their hackles up every time the government interfaces with religion in any way, no matter how benign it may seem to us Christians.

I don't want to get into all those messy arguments here, and I acknowledge that most people on the opposite side of this issue from me are not Christian-hating lunatics.  What interests me lately is the nature of the "wall of separation between church and state."  I've always imagined this wall as a figurative barrier that the ACLU has erected around all government edifices.  Any Christian caught talking about God on the wrong side of that wall risks being chased back over the wall by a shouting horde of righteously indignant university professors sporting unkempt beards and tweed jackets.  In this mental image, the Christians are always trying to find their way over the wall so we can participate in the government the way the Founding Fathers intended (free exercise thereof).

Lately I've started to picture this wall a little differently.  Let's revisit New Orleans for a moment.  After the hurricane the local, state, and federal government reminded me of the Three Stooges poking one another in the eyeballs.  Desperate people everywhere were crying for the government to help.  Where did the Federal Emergency Management Agency send thousands of people for shelter?  Churches!  From where else did much help come?  The SALVATION Army.  The Red CROSS.  My oft-maligned-by-pop-culture Southern Baptist brothers and sisters have already prepared about five million meals as part of the relief effort.  I'm still waiting for the ACLU to decry how the government directing people to churches inappropriately violates the "establishment of religion."  My guess is that some people are thinking it but won't bring it up because they know the reception they would get.

So how do I picture this wall differently now?  Sometimes I still see Christians peeking over to see if the coast is clear.  But other times I now see one of those university professors scrambling over in the opposite direction, seeking refuge from some horrible disaster from which his beloved government cannot save him.  I think Jesus wants us to have plenty of bottled water and Band-Aids ready.