Today I read Daniel Quinn's "Ishmael." Highly recommended reading! I won't go much into it, but will say that after I read it and then went on to read about the drought in the state of Georgia, the comments in the article really hit home...
Things like:
"What we've learned from this is what a blunt weapon the Endangered Species Act has become, where some obscure bureaucrat in Fish and Wildlife and some obscure judge can decide that mussels are more important than our children and grandchildren," said U.S. Rep. John Linder, R-Georgia, who spoke after Perdue at Saturday's news conference.
Perdue blasted what he called the "silly rules" governing the water situation, noting that even if the state got replenishing rains, it could not by law conserve those and must release the water to run downstream.
"We are also mired in a frustrating manmade disaster of federal bureaucracy," Perdue said.
"The actions of the Army Corps of Engineers and the Fish and Wildlife Services are downright dangerous, and Georgia cannot stand for this negligence."
See the rest at http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/20/georgia.drought/index.html
The thing that makes Perdue's comments so interesting is that there is NO realization or even consideration that perhaps the city of Atlanta can not be supported by the geographic area around it. It couldn't possibly be that Atlanta has gotten too large... no, it's that the 'disaster of federal bureaucracy' can't be navigated to the likes of the people that aren't happy... with no concern for the other life that depend on that river, including, apparently, other people.
Oh for the day when a political leader will stand up and say "Our actions are downright dangerous... we must change the way we live" rather than blaming the likes of the Fish and Game department, who are merely extending protection to life that we will surely end eventually...
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Stop congratulating and start listening!
An opinion piece from the Times in response to Gore's winning (jointly, with the IPCC) of the Nobel Peace Prize entitled The Trivial Pursuit concludes with these sentences:
Al Gore is a serious man confronted by a political system that is not open to a serious exploration of important, complex issues. He knows it.
“What politics has become,” he said, with a laugh and a tinge of regret, “requires a level of tolerance for triviality and artifice and nonsense that I have found in short supply.”
See the full article here.
Sadly, it seems true. The Office of the President is badly in need of a restoration of trust and integrity, both with the American people and with the rest of the world. And the person most capable of restoring that trust and integrity realizes that the crap that he would have to do to obtain the office would in all likelihood minimize or at least greatly reduce his ability to then rebuild that trust and integrity.
Uh-oh.
Al Gore is a serious man confronted by a political system that is not open to a serious exploration of important, complex issues. He knows it.
“What politics has become,” he said, with a laugh and a tinge of regret, “requires a level of tolerance for triviality and artifice and nonsense that I have found in short supply.”
See the full article here.
Sadly, it seems true. The Office of the President is badly in need of a restoration of trust and integrity, both with the American people and with the rest of the world. And the person most capable of restoring that trust and integrity realizes that the crap that he would have to do to obtain the office would in all likelihood minimize or at least greatly reduce his ability to then rebuild that trust and integrity.
Uh-oh.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
To Trust or not to trust...
Karl-Henrik Robert was back in the classroom today with the master's class, and I sat in for the first hour or so. The topic was social sustainability -- an interesting topic to discuss in a sustainability program that is housed in a mechanical engineering department. Never-the-less, it struck me how relevant the social sustainability conversation is. Actually... nevermind 'relevant' - try PARAMOUNT.
I was just browsing some news articles... the first that caught my attention was Would you like a helicopter or minisub to go with that megayacht?. Interesting. Next... The Arctic's alarming sea change. Talk about things that make you go hmmmm... I guess maybe if I had the money and the arctic was opening up, I'd buy a yacht, too. Certainly a better investment than ocean front property... but does it strike anyone else as a bit ironic to see these two articles together? Especially if you read the article about the yachts - excuse me, megayachts - in which they talk about having GREEN megayachts. Maybe when the start running on algae (not too far-fetched!) and being remade of the Titanic (a bit more far-fetched) or other recycled stuff... maybe then the Green label will be ok. Diffuse glass in order to run the AC less? I don't think so.
In tying this back to the topic at hand... the third article that grabbed my attention: Meanwhile: Fill'er up with trust. During the lecture, Kalle was talking about the need for trust and how he is thinking more and more that it is all about trust. If we do some diagramming of the world to show some causal relationships... I think we might find that there are lots of gaps where we ought to see big, bold arrows with "TRUST" on the label.
So. How can we increase the level of trust in the world? Seems to me that the wealth gap between rich and poor can't be growing if we are going to increase trust. So much for those megayachts...
Along similar lines, I was having a conversation with myself in the kitchen the other day about my previous post on religion. I think some - perhaps many - would argue that compassion is a good thing that comes from their religious faith -- that belief in a particular religion increases our compassion for others. Fair enough -- that is consistent with my experience with christianity and consistent with my limited knowledge of several other faith traditions.
But why is compassion important? We take pride in having compassion when we help those who are less fortunate than ourselves... but why is it compassion that moves us to act? Would not it be far better if it was *common sense* that motivated us? Instead of saying "I'm going to donate to my favorite charity because I see that there are people in need and I have compassion for those people" wouldn't it be better if we all stepped back and said "I have all that I need; these other people don't. So I am going to give all of my excess so that we all can live."
What's the difference, you ask?
The difference is that when I give out of compassion, giving something small is enough to satisfy my feeling of obligation. As long as I give away a small fishing boat, it's okay for me to have a megayacht.
When I give out of common sense, it isn't to satisfy my feeling of obligation. Rather, it is because I realize -- consciously -- that my having a megayacht isn't helping very many people satisfy their basic needs. I can't stop giving after just a small fishing boat because I realize that there is still a gargantuan difference between what I have and what the other has. I might even realize that I don't need to take so much to begin with... because I just end up giving it away.
I'm only afraid that in this day and age, doing that very thing would diminish trust... people would be very suspicious about what I was up to..
I was just browsing some news articles... the first that caught my attention was Would you like a helicopter or minisub to go with that megayacht?. Interesting. Next... The Arctic's alarming sea change. Talk about things that make you go hmmmm... I guess maybe if I had the money and the arctic was opening up, I'd buy a yacht, too. Certainly a better investment than ocean front property... but does it strike anyone else as a bit ironic to see these two articles together? Especially if you read the article about the yachts - excuse me, megayachts - in which they talk about having GREEN megayachts. Maybe when the start running on algae (not too far-fetched!) and being remade of the Titanic (a bit more far-fetched) or other recycled stuff... maybe then the Green label will be ok. Diffuse glass in order to run the AC less? I don't think so.
In tying this back to the topic at hand... the third article that grabbed my attention: Meanwhile: Fill'er up with trust. During the lecture, Kalle was talking about the need for trust and how he is thinking more and more that it is all about trust. If we do some diagramming of the world to show some causal relationships... I think we might find that there are lots of gaps where we ought to see big, bold arrows with "TRUST" on the label.
So. How can we increase the level of trust in the world? Seems to me that the wealth gap between rich and poor can't be growing if we are going to increase trust. So much for those megayachts...
Along similar lines, I was having a conversation with myself in the kitchen the other day about my previous post on religion. I think some - perhaps many - would argue that compassion is a good thing that comes from their religious faith -- that belief in a particular religion increases our compassion for others. Fair enough -- that is consistent with my experience with christianity and consistent with my limited knowledge of several other faith traditions.
But why is compassion important? We take pride in having compassion when we help those who are less fortunate than ourselves... but why is it compassion that moves us to act? Would not it be far better if it was *common sense* that motivated us? Instead of saying "I'm going to donate to my favorite charity because I see that there are people in need and I have compassion for those people" wouldn't it be better if we all stepped back and said "I have all that I need; these other people don't. So I am going to give all of my excess so that we all can live."
What's the difference, you ask?
The difference is that when I give out of compassion, giving something small is enough to satisfy my feeling of obligation. As long as I give away a small fishing boat, it's okay for me to have a megayacht.
When I give out of common sense, it isn't to satisfy my feeling of obligation. Rather, it is because I realize -- consciously -- that my having a megayacht isn't helping very many people satisfy their basic needs. I can't stop giving after just a small fishing boat because I realize that there is still a gargantuan difference between what I have and what the other has. I might even realize that I don't need to take so much to begin with... because I just end up giving it away.
I'm only afraid that in this day and age, doing that very thing would diminish trust... people would be very suspicious about what I was up to..
Monday, September 24, 2007
Religion: Why we must transcend it
The title of this blog is "Making Sense of it All." And I've been thinking quite a lot about what that means. Religion plays a big role in our world in helping us make sense of it all. So while at first this feels a bit out of the blue... it's really quite integral to all of what I think about, and I'll try to explain that as I go.
I drafted this post quite some time ago, but hesitated to post because it obviously stirs up powerful emotions. However, this morning upon seeing a report published by the Council of Europe regarding an issue that is wreaking havoc in the quality of US K-12 education -- the teaching of creationism or "intelligent design" -- well, it's time for me to comment. See the report here: The dangers of creationism in education.
I suppose this is an appropriate place to put a disclaimer... or perhaps several. First, that this - as with all my posts - is a snapshot of my thinking at a particular time. My thinking is continuously evolving and devolving, going in circles, advancing and retreating. Here you read my latest. Second, those who have watched and supported my growth over the years may be a bit surprised or you may not... depending upon the time in my life when you participated. To all of those friends and acquaintances, from pals to pastors, people with whom I've had a single conversation to my best of friends, and especially family: I mean no offense with the suggestions I make nor with the ideas I propose. I share them only in hopes that they might parallel thoughts and questions that you have, at one time or another, also faced.
And so, religion it is. Unfortunately, organized religion as we know it and this blog title are incompatible. While I don't like to make blanket statements, I feel pretty comfortable with this one.
My overarching thought: we can not solve problems at the same level of thinking as when we created the problems. Religion has created many, many problems. We -- humanity -- can not solve those problems while we are still at the level of religion. We, then, must transcend what we know as religion if we are to solve the greatest challenges that face human society.
Hold that thought for a second... I want to go back to the big questions that I asked at the beginning of the master's program last year: How do we motivate people toward a more sustainable way of living? It's a quite perplexing question that I - and no doubt many, many others - have pondered over the last year. And I have no comprehensive answer just now... but only a nagging sense that it's answer is quite closely related to the thought you are holding about our need to transcend religion.
From a sustainability standpoint... and by that, I mean from a perspective that considers what humans need in order to continue to exist as a species... we have a limited but growing understanding of what we can or can not do. We know that our physical bodies require air, water, and energy in the form of food. We know that certain other things are poisonous to our bodies. From these two statements, we can derive guidelines that show us how our society must develop in order to ensure that these requirements of our survival are met... that we have to be able to obtain breathable air, drinkable water, and nutritious food while not taking in anything that will poison us. That's what we do know. Still, within the physical world there is much that we do not know, such as the effects of radiation or the earth's magnetic fields on our bodies.
The need for physical subsistence is at least part of our bare minimum requirements for subsistence. From previous posts, you'll know that I believe there is more to it than that... that we must also fulfill other human needs along the lines of affection, identity, protection, understanding, creation, etc. The point I want to make for now, though, is that our physical existence is at least part of a bare minimum requirement for human society to continue to exist for a long, long time.
If we agree on that, then it should be easy to agree that it would be advantageous for us to understand the physical world in which we live... the biological processes upon which we depend -- not only our own bodies, but also those processes of other organisms with which we co-exist. Photosynthesis and cellular respiration are key to this, as together they explain how energy is taken from the sun and used to create ordered matter in the form of plants and animals.
The point that I am trying to arrive at: I believe that for thousands--if not tens of thousands--of years, religion has served as a cop-out for people actually understanding how these natural processes work. To be fair, people of 3,000 years ago did not have the technology that enabled them to readily understand the basic workings of the world... and so defaulted to myths and stories to answer questions about how things work. Today, however, we have no excuse for not having at least an elementary understanding of the natural processes upon which we are dependent. It follows that we have no excuse for not living in ways that at least minimize our disruption of these processes (and perhaps we should go beyond this minimal requirement and find ways to SUPPORT these processes).
Now, there's a bit of a gap in my logic up to this point: even if (even though) religion has historically been a cop-out for human understanding of the world, it doesn't mean that religious belief is incompatible with such an understanding... it only means that the religions we have seen are not supportive of such an understanding. If taken a step further, however, by clarifying 'religion' as a belief in any sort of God or gods with supernatural and/or world-creating powers... then I believe we address that gap, because such a being is incompatible with an understanding of how our physical world operates.
(Faith -- in terms of going beyond reason, or believing in things not seen -- may still have a role in a sustainable society... but it must shift as our understanding of how society operates changes. In the past, when we didn't have the knowledge that the earth is 4.5 billion + years old, it was acceptable to believe that it could have been created 6,000 years ago. Today we know that it isn't true. As our level of scientific understanding grows, the beginning boundaries of our faith -- the place where our knowledge stops and our faith begins -- must move.)
The consequences of this realization -- this reality for our world -- are staggering, both at individual and societal levels. Sometimes I wonder if it isn't better for us to maintain our religious beliefs -- for they give us hope, joy, cause for celebration, and many other benefits. However, in a world that is increasingly demanding democracy, it is far too dangerous to put power in the hands of people who do not understand -- who do not take time to understand -- the basic processes that allow life to exist.
I drafted this post quite some time ago, but hesitated to post because it obviously stirs up powerful emotions. However, this morning upon seeing a report published by the Council of Europe regarding an issue that is wreaking havoc in the quality of US K-12 education -- the teaching of creationism or "intelligent design" -- well, it's time for me to comment. See the report here: The dangers of creationism in education.
I suppose this is an appropriate place to put a disclaimer... or perhaps several. First, that this - as with all my posts - is a snapshot of my thinking at a particular time. My thinking is continuously evolving and devolving, going in circles, advancing and retreating. Here you read my latest. Second, those who have watched and supported my growth over the years may be a bit surprised or you may not... depending upon the time in my life when you participated. To all of those friends and acquaintances, from pals to pastors, people with whom I've had a single conversation to my best of friends, and especially family: I mean no offense with the suggestions I make nor with the ideas I propose. I share them only in hopes that they might parallel thoughts and questions that you have, at one time or another, also faced.
And so, religion it is. Unfortunately, organized religion as we know it and this blog title are incompatible. While I don't like to make blanket statements, I feel pretty comfortable with this one.
My overarching thought: we can not solve problems at the same level of thinking as when we created the problems. Religion has created many, many problems. We -- humanity -- can not solve those problems while we are still at the level of religion. We, then, must transcend what we know as religion if we are to solve the greatest challenges that face human society.
Hold that thought for a second... I want to go back to the big questions that I asked at the beginning of the master's program last year: How do we motivate people toward a more sustainable way of living? It's a quite perplexing question that I - and no doubt many, many others - have pondered over the last year. And I have no comprehensive answer just now... but only a nagging sense that it's answer is quite closely related to the thought you are holding about our need to transcend religion.
From a sustainability standpoint... and by that, I mean from a perspective that considers what humans need in order to continue to exist as a species... we have a limited but growing understanding of what we can or can not do. We know that our physical bodies require air, water, and energy in the form of food. We know that certain other things are poisonous to our bodies. From these two statements, we can derive guidelines that show us how our society must develop in order to ensure that these requirements of our survival are met... that we have to be able to obtain breathable air, drinkable water, and nutritious food while not taking in anything that will poison us. That's what we do know. Still, within the physical world there is much that we do not know, such as the effects of radiation or the earth's magnetic fields on our bodies.
The need for physical subsistence is at least part of our bare minimum requirements for subsistence. From previous posts, you'll know that I believe there is more to it than that... that we must also fulfill other human needs along the lines of affection, identity, protection, understanding, creation, etc. The point I want to make for now, though, is that our physical existence is at least part of a bare minimum requirement for human society to continue to exist for a long, long time.
If we agree on that, then it should be easy to agree that it would be advantageous for us to understand the physical world in which we live... the biological processes upon which we depend -- not only our own bodies, but also those processes of other organisms with which we co-exist. Photosynthesis and cellular respiration are key to this, as together they explain how energy is taken from the sun and used to create ordered matter in the form of plants and animals.
The point that I am trying to arrive at: I believe that for thousands--if not tens of thousands--of years, religion has served as a cop-out for people actually understanding how these natural processes work. To be fair, people of 3,000 years ago did not have the technology that enabled them to readily understand the basic workings of the world... and so defaulted to myths and stories to answer questions about how things work. Today, however, we have no excuse for not having at least an elementary understanding of the natural processes upon which we are dependent. It follows that we have no excuse for not living in ways that at least minimize our disruption of these processes (and perhaps we should go beyond this minimal requirement and find ways to SUPPORT these processes).
Now, there's a bit of a gap in my logic up to this point: even if (even though) religion has historically been a cop-out for human understanding of the world, it doesn't mean that religious belief is incompatible with such an understanding... it only means that the religions we have seen are not supportive of such an understanding. If taken a step further, however, by clarifying 'religion' as a belief in any sort of God or gods with supernatural and/or world-creating powers... then I believe we address that gap, because such a being is incompatible with an understanding of how our physical world operates.
(Faith -- in terms of going beyond reason, or believing in things not seen -- may still have a role in a sustainable society... but it must shift as our understanding of how society operates changes. In the past, when we didn't have the knowledge that the earth is 4.5 billion + years old, it was acceptable to believe that it could have been created 6,000 years ago. Today we know that it isn't true. As our level of scientific understanding grows, the beginning boundaries of our faith -- the place where our knowledge stops and our faith begins -- must move.)
The consequences of this realization -- this reality for our world -- are staggering, both at individual and societal levels. Sometimes I wonder if it isn't better for us to maintain our religious beliefs -- for they give us hope, joy, cause for celebration, and many other benefits. However, in a world that is increasingly demanding democracy, it is far too dangerous to put power in the hands of people who do not understand -- who do not take time to understand -- the basic processes that allow life to exist.
Monday, September 3, 2007
Things that make you go...
So. After not writing much of anything an hour ago, I just came across an article that is making me crazy. It was in the Des Moines Register: "Former Waterloo teacher pursues lawsuit over job he lost after Catholic Church declined to annul his first marriage" and the full text is below.
These are the kinds of things that drive me absolutely crazy. It's why organized religion is going down the tubes... why the catholic church is failing miserably to do anything worth doing... and why I need to get back to finish a post that I've drafted about religion and the impact that it has on the long-term future of society. It's a very touchy subject, obviously... but one that I feel we are going to have to start talking about more and more if we're going to survive. Don't tell Al Gore, but I think it might be an even more important topic that global warming. And a whole lot harder to agree on.
32 years as a teacher, and they've fired him because he didn't annul his marriage before getting remarried? I've got to say... makes it really hard to understand why there is so much debate about gay marriage... why would anyone want to be married at all if that's how things are going to end up??
I'm so perplexed I can't even be angry. Please, someone tell me this is just being made up... I keep reading the last sentence of the article waiting for "And they all lived happily ever after."
Former Waterloo teacher pursues lawsuit over job he lost after Catholic Church declined to annul his first marriage
By SHIRLEY RAGSDALE
REGISTER RELIGION EDITOR
September 3, 2007
57 Comments
Tom and Molly Girsch had less than a week of wedded bliss before their lives were thrown into a turmoil that tested their marriage, faith and livelihood.
The simple civil ceremony performed before a handful of friends and family members in their backyard Aug. 4, 2006, launched the Waterloo couple's new life together.
It also began the end of Tom Girsch's three-decade career as a teacher and coach at Columbus High School, a Catholic school in Waterloo.
Over the next year, Girsch would negotiate a revised contract, the Cedar Valley Catholic Schools' board would take two votes on whether he could stay, and the archbishop would weigh in on the controversy. In the end, for lack of a church annulment, the social studies teacher would be forced to resign.
"The wedding was supposed to be a happy thing," said Molly Girsch. "We had been lucky (in love) once before, and we were overjoyed we could be lucky again."
Molly, 52, was a widow and a substitute teacher at Cedar Valley Catholic Schools. Tom, 59, divorced in 1997. They met through a mutual friend about 10 years ago and were friends before they began dating.
"We didn't think the marriage was going to cause trouble," said Tom Girsch. "But a few days after the ceremony, I got called to the office. When I walked in, (school officials) offered congratulations on my marriage and said they were happy for me. Then they asked if I ever got an annulment. I said I hadn't. Then they asked if I was aware that they could terminate me."
Church sees teachers as examples of faith
About half of U.S. Catholics, by the 20th anniversary of their first marriage, have divorced, according a 2002 study. The church does not make public the number of annulments granted.
While the Catholic Church recognizes that some marriages fail despite the best efforts of the couple, it views marriage as a sacred covenant that cannot be broken by civil divorce. While parishes give support to divorced Catholics, they may not remarry with church blessing unless they receive an annulment - a determination by church officials that their first marriage was invalid. Annulments do not nullify the first marriage, but are granted under the criteria that some element of the marital bond, while presumed to be present, actually was lacking when the parties married, according to the Metropolitan Tribunal for the Archdiocese of Dubuque.
When school officials suggested that if Girsch sought an annulment he might be allowed to continue to teach, he said he told them he'd have to check with his former wife, current wife and his family. He asked for some time, but by the end of the day, school officials notified him that he had 48 hours to resign or be terminated.
The difference between the expectations for Catholic teachers and teachers of other faiths centers around the Roman Catholic Church's beliefs concerning the sacraments and supporting the precepts of the church, according to Jeff Henderson, Dubuque Archdiocese superintendent of schools.
"In the Catholic Church, teachers are referred to as witnesses and examples of faith," Henderson said. "By contract, a teacher also agrees to conduct himself as a moral person, ... to be a community leader and faithful citizen of the church and state, and act accordingly at all times."
"So relieved people stood up for us"
News of the school board's ultimatum spread quickly.
"It was like a tidal wave of e-mail in the Catholic community," said Kathy McCoy, a friend of the Girsch family. "Tom got thousands of supportive e-mail messages from students, current and past, from all over the world."
Cedar Valley officials were also hearing from people, according to George Scully, a Waterloo Catholic. Scully said he believes that uproar led the school and archdiocese to negotiate a revised contract with Tom Girsch.
The agreement, signed Sept. 7, 2006, specified that Tom would immediately seek an annulment through the Metropolitan Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Dubuque. If the annulment wasn't granted, he would submit his resignation, which the school board could accept or reject. He also agreed to work with the school board to "heal the wounds that may have been created by the situation."
Although many Catholics receive annulments, Girsch's request was denied. The annulment proceedings are secret.
Girsch submitted his resignation to the Cedar Valley school board July 12. He told the board that his resignation was extremely painful, but that he was meeting all the stipulations in the revised contract. Six of Girsch's supporters and his attorney asked the board to reject his resignation.
Brendan Quann, attorney for the archdiocese, told board members that it was an unfortunate situation, but that they had to vote not out of sympathy but in favor of the laws of the church, according to the meeting minutes.
"This situation is not about Tom and his performance, but about the precepts of the church and Tom knowing these when he signed the contract," said Quann, who went on to warn the board that not accepting the resignation would set a precedent for future special requests.
When the board returned from executive session, the Rev. Lou Jaeger, pastor of Sacred Heart Parish, made a motion to regretfully accept the resignation. In a show of hands, Girsch's resignation was rejected, 8-6. The room erupted in applause.
"I thought it was over," said Tom Girsch. "I was so relieved that people stood up for us and that everybody was honorable."
His sense of relief evaporated soon after, when Dubuque Archbishop Jerome Hanus sent a letter to the school board insisting that the board follow church law and archdiocesan policy.
A special board meeting was called for Aug. 6 to reconsider the vote. On Aug. 2, Girsch sued the school and archdiocese, asking the court to bar the second vote and force the board to issue him a contract.
On Aug. 6, Black Hawk County District Judge George Stigler refused to act, stating he didn't want to get involved with church business. That evening, the board reversed itself, voting unanimously to accept Girsch's resignation.
Most people in the room interpreted the archbishop's letter as a threat to remove church funding from Cedar Valley schools. They could not survive as a private school, people agreed.
Girsch left the meeting without a job, and without benefits.
"It's difficult not to be bitter"
"Tom was the face of Columbus High School in this community, and after 32 years, they threw him away without a pension or retirement," said McCoy. "That's great thanks for all the students he's helped. It's difficult not to be bitter."
When it comes to church matters, the archbishop holds the cards, according to Waterloo attorney Tim Luce, a former Cedar Valley board president. "The archbishop is the president of every corporation in the church. It's a tough deal. This would have been easier if Tom hadn't been such a good teacher," said Luce.
Tom and Molly Girsch have stopped attending St. Edward Catholic Church - where Tom attended as a child and where his children were reared - after their parish priest, the Rev. Jerry Kopacek, spoke about Tom's case from the pulpit.
"Tom was used as an example by name, and I thought it was in poor taste," said Patricia Connell of Waterloo, who attended the Saturday evening service.
"Father Kopacek spoke about Tom's divorce and remarriage, that he didn't get an annulment. He said the local school board was given the job of accepting Tom's resignation, and when it did not, the archdiocese had to remind them to follow Catholic doctrine. He used it as a springboard to review church rules on marriage and annulment."
Kopacek denies "giving any details about the nature of the case."
"I would never do that," Kopacek said. "It would be totally inappropriate. I spoke on the general process, what annulment is about. There are a lot of misconceptions."
Girsch's breach-of-contract lawsuit is pending.
"Fighting the church is difficult for us," he said. "They never want to talk about the legal part of this, they want to push the church part. They wrote a contract stating if I fulfilled it I could teach. I fulfilled it. I won the vote, and it should have been over."
These are the kinds of things that drive me absolutely crazy. It's why organized religion is going down the tubes... why the catholic church is failing miserably to do anything worth doing... and why I need to get back to finish a post that I've drafted about religion and the impact that it has on the long-term future of society. It's a very touchy subject, obviously... but one that I feel we are going to have to start talking about more and more if we're going to survive. Don't tell Al Gore, but I think it might be an even more important topic that global warming. And a whole lot harder to agree on.
32 years as a teacher, and they've fired him because he didn't annul his marriage before getting remarried? I've got to say... makes it really hard to understand why there is so much debate about gay marriage... why would anyone want to be married at all if that's how things are going to end up??
I'm so perplexed I can't even be angry. Please, someone tell me this is just being made up... I keep reading the last sentence of the article waiting for "And they all lived happily ever after."
Former Waterloo teacher pursues lawsuit over job he lost after Catholic Church declined to annul his first marriage
By SHIRLEY RAGSDALE
REGISTER RELIGION EDITOR
September 3, 2007
57 Comments
Tom and Molly Girsch had less than a week of wedded bliss before their lives were thrown into a turmoil that tested their marriage, faith and livelihood.
The simple civil ceremony performed before a handful of friends and family members in their backyard Aug. 4, 2006, launched the Waterloo couple's new life together.
It also began the end of Tom Girsch's three-decade career as a teacher and coach at Columbus High School, a Catholic school in Waterloo.
Over the next year, Girsch would negotiate a revised contract, the Cedar Valley Catholic Schools' board would take two votes on whether he could stay, and the archbishop would weigh in on the controversy. In the end, for lack of a church annulment, the social studies teacher would be forced to resign.
"The wedding was supposed to be a happy thing," said Molly Girsch. "We had been lucky (in love) once before, and we were overjoyed we could be lucky again."
Molly, 52, was a widow and a substitute teacher at Cedar Valley Catholic Schools. Tom, 59, divorced in 1997. They met through a mutual friend about 10 years ago and were friends before they began dating.
"We didn't think the marriage was going to cause trouble," said Tom Girsch. "But a few days after the ceremony, I got called to the office. When I walked in, (school officials) offered congratulations on my marriage and said they were happy for me. Then they asked if I ever got an annulment. I said I hadn't. Then they asked if I was aware that they could terminate me."
Church sees teachers as examples of faith
About half of U.S. Catholics, by the 20th anniversary of their first marriage, have divorced, according a 2002 study. The church does not make public the number of annulments granted.
While the Catholic Church recognizes that some marriages fail despite the best efforts of the couple, it views marriage as a sacred covenant that cannot be broken by civil divorce. While parishes give support to divorced Catholics, they may not remarry with church blessing unless they receive an annulment - a determination by church officials that their first marriage was invalid. Annulments do not nullify the first marriage, but are granted under the criteria that some element of the marital bond, while presumed to be present, actually was lacking when the parties married, according to the Metropolitan Tribunal for the Archdiocese of Dubuque.
When school officials suggested that if Girsch sought an annulment he might be allowed to continue to teach, he said he told them he'd have to check with his former wife, current wife and his family. He asked for some time, but by the end of the day, school officials notified him that he had 48 hours to resign or be terminated.
The difference between the expectations for Catholic teachers and teachers of other faiths centers around the Roman Catholic Church's beliefs concerning the sacraments and supporting the precepts of the church, according to Jeff Henderson, Dubuque Archdiocese superintendent of schools.
"In the Catholic Church, teachers are referred to as witnesses and examples of faith," Henderson said. "By contract, a teacher also agrees to conduct himself as a moral person, ... to be a community leader and faithful citizen of the church and state, and act accordingly at all times."
"So relieved people stood up for us"
News of the school board's ultimatum spread quickly.
"It was like a tidal wave of e-mail in the Catholic community," said Kathy McCoy, a friend of the Girsch family. "Tom got thousands of supportive e-mail messages from students, current and past, from all over the world."
Cedar Valley officials were also hearing from people, according to George Scully, a Waterloo Catholic. Scully said he believes that uproar led the school and archdiocese to negotiate a revised contract with Tom Girsch.
The agreement, signed Sept. 7, 2006, specified that Tom would immediately seek an annulment through the Metropolitan Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Dubuque. If the annulment wasn't granted, he would submit his resignation, which the school board could accept or reject. He also agreed to work with the school board to "heal the wounds that may have been created by the situation."
Although many Catholics receive annulments, Girsch's request was denied. The annulment proceedings are secret.
Girsch submitted his resignation to the Cedar Valley school board July 12. He told the board that his resignation was extremely painful, but that he was meeting all the stipulations in the revised contract. Six of Girsch's supporters and his attorney asked the board to reject his resignation.
Brendan Quann, attorney for the archdiocese, told board members that it was an unfortunate situation, but that they had to vote not out of sympathy but in favor of the laws of the church, according to the meeting minutes.
"This situation is not about Tom and his performance, but about the precepts of the church and Tom knowing these when he signed the contract," said Quann, who went on to warn the board that not accepting the resignation would set a precedent for future special requests.
When the board returned from executive session, the Rev. Lou Jaeger, pastor of Sacred Heart Parish, made a motion to regretfully accept the resignation. In a show of hands, Girsch's resignation was rejected, 8-6. The room erupted in applause.
"I thought it was over," said Tom Girsch. "I was so relieved that people stood up for us and that everybody was honorable."
His sense of relief evaporated soon after, when Dubuque Archbishop Jerome Hanus sent a letter to the school board insisting that the board follow church law and archdiocesan policy.
A special board meeting was called for Aug. 6 to reconsider the vote. On Aug. 2, Girsch sued the school and archdiocese, asking the court to bar the second vote and force the board to issue him a contract.
On Aug. 6, Black Hawk County District Judge George Stigler refused to act, stating he didn't want to get involved with church business. That evening, the board reversed itself, voting unanimously to accept Girsch's resignation.
Most people in the room interpreted the archbishop's letter as a threat to remove church funding from Cedar Valley schools. They could not survive as a private school, people agreed.
Girsch left the meeting without a job, and without benefits.
"It's difficult not to be bitter"
"Tom was the face of Columbus High School in this community, and after 32 years, they threw him away without a pension or retirement," said McCoy. "That's great thanks for all the students he's helped. It's difficult not to be bitter."
When it comes to church matters, the archbishop holds the cards, according to Waterloo attorney Tim Luce, a former Cedar Valley board president. "The archbishop is the president of every corporation in the church. It's a tough deal. This would have been easier if Tom hadn't been such a good teacher," said Luce.
Tom and Molly Girsch have stopped attending St. Edward Catholic Church - where Tom attended as a child and where his children were reared - after their parish priest, the Rev. Jerry Kopacek, spoke about Tom's case from the pulpit.
"Tom was used as an example by name, and I thought it was in poor taste," said Patricia Connell of Waterloo, who attended the Saturday evening service.
"Father Kopacek spoke about Tom's divorce and remarriage, that he didn't get an annulment. He said the local school board was given the job of accepting Tom's resignation, and when it did not, the archdiocese had to remind them to follow Catholic doctrine. He used it as a springboard to review church rules on marriage and annulment."
Kopacek denies "giving any details about the nature of the case."
"I would never do that," Kopacek said. "It would be totally inappropriate. I spoke on the general process, what annulment is about. There are a lot of misconceptions."
Girsch's breach-of-contract lawsuit is pending.
"Fighting the church is difficult for us," he said. "They never want to talk about the legal part of this, they want to push the church part. They wrote a contract stating if I fulfilled it I could teach. I fulfilled it. I won the vote, and it should have been over."
Keeping up
It's one of those lazy evenings after a long day of work... it's raining, it's quiet, and I've spent the last few minutes reading the posts of friends. So I thought maybe I'd toss something up here... with no particular agenda at the moment, it could be interesting to see where this leads!
It was the first official day of class for the new master's students. They seem to be doing quite well! And there are about 60 of them -- 30-50% more than ever before -- so it could be an interesting year as we venture into unknown territory. And while I haven't had the opportunity to interact with the class as a whole too much, they do seem to be off to a great start.
My work... has been more focused on funding applications for some large research projects we are working on. And trying to get my computer to work. Uffda. I still can't print... so it makes work a little inconvenient, to say the least.
I'm becoming very frustrated with Microsoft. My new computer at work has Vista... but not the right version to be able to connect to our network. So we've been given the ok to upgrade, but we weren't given the dvd that we should have been given when we bought them. So it has to be ordered. All these little things that add up to really reducing productivity... quite frustrating. Damn Microsoft. I'm about ready to go back to linux.
But I don't feel like dwelling on the negative just now. I read a good book over the weekend: "Cradle to Cradle". It's talked about a fair amount in sustainability circles, but I'd never read it. I don't know that there was anything earth shattering, but it was well written and thus easy to read... and that is what we need more of. For any who aren't familiar with the concept... 'cradle to cradle' is the direction in which the product design world is moving... away from the 'cradle to grave' concept where products are created, used, and thrown away. 'Cradle to cradle' suggests that products are created, used, and used again... possibly recycled or preferrably 'upcycled'... the difference being that 'recycled' materials lose quality, whereas 'upcycled' products are intended to improve with use. Interesting concept that is often easier said than done.
I think I'm going to coin the term procycle... some other time.
It was the first official day of class for the new master's students. They seem to be doing quite well! And there are about 60 of them -- 30-50% more than ever before -- so it could be an interesting year as we venture into unknown territory. And while I haven't had the opportunity to interact with the class as a whole too much, they do seem to be off to a great start.
My work... has been more focused on funding applications for some large research projects we are working on. And trying to get my computer to work. Uffda. I still can't print... so it makes work a little inconvenient, to say the least.
I'm becoming very frustrated with Microsoft. My new computer at work has Vista... but not the right version to be able to connect to our network. So we've been given the ok to upgrade, but we weren't given the dvd that we should have been given when we bought them. So it has to be ordered. All these little things that add up to really reducing productivity... quite frustrating. Damn Microsoft. I'm about ready to go back to linux.
But I don't feel like dwelling on the negative just now. I read a good book over the weekend: "Cradle to Cradle". It's talked about a fair amount in sustainability circles, but I'd never read it. I don't know that there was anything earth shattering, but it was well written and thus easy to read... and that is what we need more of. For any who aren't familiar with the concept... 'cradle to cradle' is the direction in which the product design world is moving... away from the 'cradle to grave' concept where products are created, used, and thrown away. 'Cradle to cradle' suggests that products are created, used, and used again... possibly recycled or preferrably 'upcycled'... the difference being that 'recycled' materials lose quality, whereas 'upcycled' products are intended to improve with use. Interesting concept that is often easier said than done.
I think I'm going to coin the term procycle... some other time.
Thursday, August 9, 2007
Tar sands and rivers in Canada
Feel free to copy / paste and forward this along if you think it is worth sharing!
Forwarded emails come through quite often to all of us... Usually telling the story of a special person or suggesting that we'll have bad luck if we don’t send to 10 friends within the hour. Well, this message doesn't promise you bad luck, and there aren't any pretty pictures. But it could be a wake up call for what's going on around the world. This is a story of a friend's trip to the Athabasca River (Alberta, Canada). I hope you'll read it, and then send it along just as you would if it promised you bad luck or had pretty pictures. Because while it doesn't promise you bad luck, it does promise our grandkids and our great grandkids bad luck... And while it doesn't include pretty pictures, it does promise to take away the beauty of our world unless we change our ways.
The message below was written by the friend of a friend... I can't vouch for its accuracy, but it seems spot on to me. Feel free to write me if you'd like... I don't have all the answers, but I'm starting to ask the questions.
Thanks for caring-
Tony
Tony Thompson
411.tony (at) gmail (dot) com
This weekend I learned that there is nothing in the world to be more grateful for than the clean dry socks hidden at the bottom of a mud-covered backpack, and that some really messed up things are going on that I don't remember us consenting to.
I'm not a scientist, or even scientifically-inclined. I know hardly anything about oil sands development, I definitely went in with a bias, and the things I know and observe are largely emotional. I don't think that oil extraction is entirely wrong because I like my comforts too, but I think we need to do it carefully.
Here are few stats I did find though: the average age in Fort McMurray is 31. The average income is over $90,000 per year (twice the national average). 17% of the people are on drugs (compared to 2% in Calgary), and its mostly cocaine. 10 yellow pages of the phone book are dedicated to escorts, in a city of 60,000. It's projected that 1/3 of Alberta will be claimed by the oil sands in the near future. If these things are anything close to true, change needs to happen quickly.
When my friend Meghan invited me to join Pembina on the "Connecting the Drops" expedition I jumped at the opportunity. I've been wanting to see Fort McMurray and the oil sands development for some time. Plus, this was an opportunity to paddle down the river. Don Van Hout has been following the Athabasca from its source, with some company along the way, and a large group joining him for the journey through the sands as an awareness-raising journey. His dedication and spirit are amazing.
I started to get a sense of what was going on as we neared Fort Mac in the car from Calgary. It was past midnight by the time we got there, and eerie, with every stretch of highway in the area under construction. The roads are all being widened as the town readies itself for steady leaps in growth.
Our group trickled into our campsite on the outskirts of the city. The group of about 40 included environmentalists, people working in the oil industry, archeologists, a musician, ecologists, outdoor educators, travelers and students. We were even accompanied by a politician - Dr. David Swann, the provincial environment critic.
My first impression of the city of Fort McMurray came from the Tim Hortons the next morning; at that time of day the only women I saw were working behind the counter. I wondered how that imbalance affected the community, that overflow of testosterone. But I soon realized that
community might not be the priority up here. There is no feeling of permanence, and the general impression is that the shops and restaurants are set up for convenience. Everything feels temporary.
Signs everywhere proudly nickname the city "Boomtown". To me, there's only one outcome at the end of a boom.
Fort McMurray is definitely booming. The signs are everywhere. The bottom of my car scrapes on the speed bumps that are designed for trucks. The trucks are mostly brand new and fancy. Then there are the drug problems, and evidence of that in the walk and talk of people throughout the city.
The first item on my agenda was to meet our group at a press conference for Connecting the Drops on the banks of the Athabasca. David Swann and Don spoke, as did Danielle from the Bow Riverkeepers. Residents of a nearby reserve spoke about how they are affected by the development. An elder told us about the alarming rates of cancer, she spoke specifically of the children affected by the disease. She talked about the poor water quality. Even the flesh of the animals, including moose, has been determined too toxic to consume. Ironically, leaders of these reserves are also keen to start development on their lands too. For the money.
Our group gathered together on the rocky banks of the river. Many rocks turned out to be the tar sand - pliable pieces of putty we broke apart to see the insides that were shiny with oil. They were beautiful.
The next day we started our canoe trip. It was everything I could have hoped for as a mini-vacation. The Athabasca here is wide and gentle. We went through every weather condition: paddled hard against the wind, and lounged in the sun as the river carried us along easily.
At the end of the day we found a perfect sandbar to camp on: a narrow stretch of beach in the middle of the river. One side made an excellent swimming spot. As soon as we set up our tents, we jumped in. We lounged like we were at a resort club, played Frisbee, ate, read, as the sun set. After sunset we gathered in a circle around the fire.
It wasn't until then that I started to notice a periodic "bang" off in the distance. And then, later, there was the beeping of trucks and the sounds of machinery. I didn't realize that just over the cliffs at the rivers edge was the tar sands operations. The banging was the sound of cannons that were set off by motion around the tailing ponds (where the dirty water remaining after the oil is washed out of the sand is dumped). If birds or other wildlife were to rest on that water, its
toxicity would do extreme damage. In fact, this water is so toxic there is nothing they can do with it. There is no efficient way to dispose of it.
I woke up first the next morning and watched the sun rise through the mist on the river, stunned by how gentle it was while we humans were so willing to just suck it dry for the sake of oil and money.
When we saw the sands from the canoe the next day I was awed, but not surprised. I'd seen those pictures before. Trucks and machines pushing dirt around in what looks like a wasteland. I wondered what doing that job every day, for long days, would do to your soul. There was a heaviness in our group. The sympathetic sky gave us a good dose of rain too. And we were lucky to see lots of wildlife from the banks: eagles, bears, moose. The sun came out later like a gift, and we paddled on steadily.
None of us were prepared for the sight of the Suncor processing plant, just visible as we made our way under the ironically named "Bridge to Nowhere". The sound was loud and industrial like nothing I've heard before: beeping and clanging. The air was dense and even the water seemed thicker. There was still wildlife on the banks, but now I wanted to shoo it away. I couldn't believe how close the operation is to the water. Most of us, including the long-time paddler I shared my canoe with, cried. But there was nothing to say. I thought of how Romeo Dallaire felt as he witnessed a genocide, knowing that he couldn't stop it without the support of the world. It felt like war and destruction.
I thought, the things we are told about this are not true. This is not safe, or necessary. There is no need for this kind of destruction. And I am not okay with this. This is not the world I want to be a part of creating. None of this happened with my consent. And this damage is not being done by people who know what is right.
We grouped out canoes together and watched in silence for a long time. We carried on down the river. We spent another night at our campground, had a fire, laughed and talked.
We made our way home, had showers and went back ordinary lives. But something, for me, is definitely changed. I need to be a part of making broader change happen. And I'm incredibly grateful that I was there with a group of strong, insightful people.
You can learn more about the rest of the expedition: www.connectingthedrops.ca
Forwarded emails come through quite often to all of us... Usually telling the story of a special person or suggesting that we'll have bad luck if we don’t send to 10 friends within the hour. Well, this message doesn't promise you bad luck, and there aren't any pretty pictures. But it could be a wake up call for what's going on around the world. This is a story of a friend's trip to the Athabasca River (Alberta, Canada). I hope you'll read it, and then send it along just as you would if it promised you bad luck or had pretty pictures. Because while it doesn't promise you bad luck, it does promise our grandkids and our great grandkids bad luck... And while it doesn't include pretty pictures, it does promise to take away the beauty of our world unless we change our ways.
The message below was written by the friend of a friend... I can't vouch for its accuracy, but it seems spot on to me. Feel free to write me if you'd like... I don't have all the answers, but I'm starting to ask the questions.
Thanks for caring-
Tony
Tony Thompson
411.tony (at) gmail (dot) com
This weekend I learned that there is nothing in the world to be more grateful for than the clean dry socks hidden at the bottom of a mud-covered backpack, and that some really messed up things are going on that I don't remember us consenting to.
I'm not a scientist, or even scientifically-inclined. I know hardly anything about oil sands development, I definitely went in with a bias, and the things I know and observe are largely emotional. I don't think that oil extraction is entirely wrong because I like my comforts too, but I think we need to do it carefully.
Here are few stats I did find though: the average age in Fort McMurray is 31. The average income is over $90,000 per year (twice the national average). 17% of the people are on drugs (compared to 2% in Calgary), and its mostly cocaine. 10 yellow pages of the phone book are dedicated to escorts, in a city of 60,000. It's projected that 1/3 of Alberta will be claimed by the oil sands in the near future. If these things are anything close to true, change needs to happen quickly.
When my friend Meghan invited me to join Pembina on the "Connecting the Drops" expedition I jumped at the opportunity. I've been wanting to see Fort McMurray and the oil sands development for some time. Plus, this was an opportunity to paddle down the river. Don Van Hout has been following the Athabasca from its source, with some company along the way, and a large group joining him for the journey through the sands as an awareness-raising journey. His dedication and spirit are amazing.
I started to get a sense of what was going on as we neared Fort Mac in the car from Calgary. It was past midnight by the time we got there, and eerie, with every stretch of highway in the area under construction. The roads are all being widened as the town readies itself for steady leaps in growth.
Our group trickled into our campsite on the outskirts of the city. The group of about 40 included environmentalists, people working in the oil industry, archeologists, a musician, ecologists, outdoor educators, travelers and students. We were even accompanied by a politician - Dr. David Swann, the provincial environment critic.
My first impression of the city of Fort McMurray came from the Tim Hortons the next morning; at that time of day the only women I saw were working behind the counter. I wondered how that imbalance affected the community, that overflow of testosterone. But I soon realized that
community might not be the priority up here. There is no feeling of permanence, and the general impression is that the shops and restaurants are set up for convenience. Everything feels temporary.
Signs everywhere proudly nickname the city "Boomtown". To me, there's only one outcome at the end of a boom.
Fort McMurray is definitely booming. The signs are everywhere. The bottom of my car scrapes on the speed bumps that are designed for trucks. The trucks are mostly brand new and fancy. Then there are the drug problems, and evidence of that in the walk and talk of people throughout the city.
The first item on my agenda was to meet our group at a press conference for Connecting the Drops on the banks of the Athabasca. David Swann and Don spoke, as did Danielle from the Bow Riverkeepers. Residents of a nearby reserve spoke about how they are affected by the development. An elder told us about the alarming rates of cancer, she spoke specifically of the children affected by the disease. She talked about the poor water quality. Even the flesh of the animals, including moose, has been determined too toxic to consume. Ironically, leaders of these reserves are also keen to start development on their lands too. For the money.
Our group gathered together on the rocky banks of the river. Many rocks turned out to be the tar sand - pliable pieces of putty we broke apart to see the insides that were shiny with oil. They were beautiful.
The next day we started our canoe trip. It was everything I could have hoped for as a mini-vacation. The Athabasca here is wide and gentle. We went through every weather condition: paddled hard against the wind, and lounged in the sun as the river carried us along easily.
At the end of the day we found a perfect sandbar to camp on: a narrow stretch of beach in the middle of the river. One side made an excellent swimming spot. As soon as we set up our tents, we jumped in. We lounged like we were at a resort club, played Frisbee, ate, read, as the sun set. After sunset we gathered in a circle around the fire.
It wasn't until then that I started to notice a periodic "bang" off in the distance. And then, later, there was the beeping of trucks and the sounds of machinery. I didn't realize that just over the cliffs at the rivers edge was the tar sands operations. The banging was the sound of cannons that were set off by motion around the tailing ponds (where the dirty water remaining after the oil is washed out of the sand is dumped). If birds or other wildlife were to rest on that water, its
toxicity would do extreme damage. In fact, this water is so toxic there is nothing they can do with it. There is no efficient way to dispose of it.
I woke up first the next morning and watched the sun rise through the mist on the river, stunned by how gentle it was while we humans were so willing to just suck it dry for the sake of oil and money.
When we saw the sands from the canoe the next day I was awed, but not surprised. I'd seen those pictures before. Trucks and machines pushing dirt around in what looks like a wasteland. I wondered what doing that job every day, for long days, would do to your soul. There was a heaviness in our group. The sympathetic sky gave us a good dose of rain too. And we were lucky to see lots of wildlife from the banks: eagles, bears, moose. The sun came out later like a gift, and we paddled on steadily.
None of us were prepared for the sight of the Suncor processing plant, just visible as we made our way under the ironically named "Bridge to Nowhere". The sound was loud and industrial like nothing I've heard before: beeping and clanging. The air was dense and even the water seemed thicker. There was still wildlife on the banks, but now I wanted to shoo it away. I couldn't believe how close the operation is to the water. Most of us, including the long-time paddler I shared my canoe with, cried. But there was nothing to say. I thought of how Romeo Dallaire felt as he witnessed a genocide, knowing that he couldn't stop it without the support of the world. It felt like war and destruction.
I thought, the things we are told about this are not true. This is not safe, or necessary. There is no need for this kind of destruction. And I am not okay with this. This is not the world I want to be a part of creating. None of this happened with my consent. And this damage is not being done by people who know what is right.
We grouped out canoes together and watched in silence for a long time. We carried on down the river. We spent another night at our campground, had a fire, laughed and talked.
We made our way home, had showers and went back ordinary lives. But something, for me, is definitely changed. I need to be a part of making broader change happen. And I'm incredibly grateful that I was there with a group of strong, insightful people.
You can learn more about the rest of the expedition: www.connectingthedrops.ca
Sicko.
Well, I have to tell ya...
Just watched Michael Moore's "Sicko" -- a documentary about health care in the US. It doesn't paint a very pretty picture... insurance companies going wild denying claims in order to make more money for their investors while people are dying from all kinds of things that can be prevented. Given a recent post showing how people in the US are quite rich compared to much of the rest of the world... it's really quite embarrassing.
Anyone want to take the lead in changing things? Maybe running for office, or at least working to hold those who are in office accountable? Anyone?? Farm bill is in the works now... Senator Harkin is going across the state of Iowa to talk with people about it... ask him how it affects people's health...
And no matter what you think of MM, I've got to say that the film supports my current experiences. Sometimes I just don't miss the US very much.
Just watched Michael Moore's "Sicko" -- a documentary about health care in the US. It doesn't paint a very pretty picture... insurance companies going wild denying claims in order to make more money for their investors while people are dying from all kinds of things that can be prevented. Given a recent post showing how people in the US are quite rich compared to much of the rest of the world... it's really quite embarrassing.
Anyone want to take the lead in changing things? Maybe running for office, or at least working to hold those who are in office accountable? Anyone?? Farm bill is in the works now... Senator Harkin is going across the state of Iowa to talk with people about it... ask him how it affects people's health...
And no matter what you think of MM, I've got to say that the film supports my current experiences. Sometimes I just don't miss the US very much.
Sunday, August 5, 2007
The Richest People in the World
Thanks to Nicole for posting this link on her blog, which I now share with you -- the Global Rich List -- a site that lets you realize how wealthy you actually are (or aren't). While it's far from perfect, it's a valuable educational tool. I think you'll be surprised where you fall: earning just $2,000 US per year puts you in the top 20%, while $23,000 US / year puts you in the top 10%... and an annual salary of $50k puts you in the top 1%. Wow.
Monday, July 30, 2007
What are you compensating for?
Just came across this and had to share:
Ask someone who drives an unnecessarily large vehicle for their needs (pickup truck, SUV), and at least half the time that person will say the US government should raise CAFE standards. I think the explanation given above is accurate; I refer to it as the “no unilateral disarmament” mind set. People don’t want to buy a big vehicle, just one that’s bigger than average.
from: "The Psychology of Energy" at http://www.grinzo.com/energy/?p=244
Oh, oh, oh... I was going to stop there. But I can't resist sharing this little bit of brilliance with you, from an article about carbon capture on Green Car Congress (http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/07/university-of-n.html#more) :
Ask someone who drives an unnecessarily large vehicle for their needs (pickup truck, SUV), and at least half the time that person will say the US government should raise CAFE standards. I think the explanation given above is accurate; I refer to it as the “no unilateral disarmament” mind set. People don’t want to buy a big vehicle, just one that’s bigger than average.
This tendency is a sad commentary on just how susceptible people are to advertising and infantile tendencies. I know a lot of men think small cars, like my Scion xA, are “chick cars”. That’s why I’ve been tempted more than once to tweak those people by putting a bumper sticker on it that says, “I drive this because I’m compensating. What are you compensating for?”
from: "The Psychology of Energy" at http://www.grinzo.com/energy/?p=244
Oh, oh, oh... I was going to stop there. But I can't resist sharing this little bit of brilliance with you, from an article about carbon capture on Green Car Congress (http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/07/university-of-n.html#more) :
Another option would be to use modest amounts of (PV-generated) electricity to grow giant artificial limestone islands on the open ocean, with embedded bouyancy elements and engines to move them about.
This would sequester CO2 already dissolved in the oceans, reducing outgassing due to rising ocean temperatures. This in turn would at least reduce the rate at which atmospheric CO2 concentrations are rising. The islands would pay for themselves as fish nurseries, vacation spots or permanent habitable landmass. You could also grow algae on their surface / inside an artificial limestone perimeter and produce biofuel from that.
I was recently thinking that I'd like to have my own ocean island... move there, take a few friends, create our own nation... that kind of thing. And it seems technically feasible. It's the underlying idea: humans have now conquered all land everywhere, so it's time to start making the ocean surface permanently habitable? Guess that shouldn't surprise me too much since we're already doing that with the "City at Sea": http://www.freedomship.com/Sunday, July 29, 2007
Back to business
After nearly six weeks of being out and about, I've returned to Karlskrona... I plan to be here for several years researching, teaching, and pursuing a Ph.D. I'm sure that I'll be talking about the research and studies plenty in the future, so today I'm going to spend a little time looking back over thoughts from this summer.
One of the things that I like about living in Sweden is that I'm not in the US -- but maybe not for the reason you think. The US is a great place to be -- one of, if not the, greatest on earth. But what makes it so great is having time to reflect on it... and that reflection time is not easily had while one is in the US because there is so much going on - work, family, friends, sports, and keeping up on the celebs. I find that I need more time to think about the US in order for me to really appreciate it... because my appreciation for the US doesn't come at face value: access to low-priced goods from around the world, opportunities for jobs, and those other kinds of things that Americans might casually name off the top of their heads.
Rather... I appreciate the thoughtfulness with which the country was founded... the guiding principles, the checks and balances of power, and the opportunity for people to pursue the kind of life each person desired through the many freedoms afforded in the constitution. That's what made the US different - special - 230 years ago.
I'm not so sure that remains the case today. Many other nations afford people the same freedoms available in the US. For sure, there are plenty of places around the world that do NOT yet afford people the same freedom... but the fact that there are plenty of nations that do makes one realize that the soapbox of being 'the free-est country on earth' is no longer an adequate podium from which to lead.
Our geographic isolation from the world has in many ways protected us over the last two centuries. Unfortunately, it is that isolation that also provides the greatest challenge to us today. When Americans are unable to get accurate pictures of what is going on around the world - but rather depend on short soundbytes and 'if it bleeds, it leads' style news briefs - we risk deluding ourselves into believing that we remain the envy of the world.
This summer I found myself frequently wondering about the great experiment in democracy... wondering about the religious and educational backgrounds of the founders and the lives they lead. But more I wonder of the level of involvement: were more people involved in the initiation of this nation than our involved in its governance today? Was there more trust in those who were leading the country then than there is today? Did people care more about what was going on then than do now?
I don't know. And I don't begin to know how one might go about answering those questions. I only despair when I think of the ignorance of comments I hear as it relates to electing leaders today... and I wonder if that would have been the case then, also. And I wonder if that is something that the founders tried to take into consideration by providing votes only to property owners -- so that owning property served as a qualifier that assumed some level of education. It's an interesting question. Today we take for granted the idea that everyone has the right to vote. But in a soundbyte world where people's opinions shift with each 30-second advertisement, how can we begin to think that the half of Americans who vote really have a clue as to what is best for the country, let alone for themselves? I don't know... and I don't know that there is anything better... but I merely suggest that we should question in a Socratic fashion, rather than answer quickly and haphazardly with a Platonic attitude.
As I think about it, I would dare to say that relatively (and clearly absolutely) more people are involved in the political goings-on in the US today than were in the 18th century. But the question that I really want to ask: do the Americans who go about celebrating and enjoying the freedom and opportunity afforded by our great nation -- and that would include nearly all of us -- do we appreciate the effort that it takes to maintain that freedom and those opportunities, and are we doing our part?
I think the answer over the last six years is a loud and resonant "NO."
When US voter turnout hovers between 35-40% in mid-term elections and ranges from 50-55.3% for Presidential elections, I don't think we are doing our part. Because voting is a BARE MINIMUM -- in fact, it's far LESS than the minimum -- that is required to maintain our land of freedom and opportunity. Democracy is dependent upon people being actively engaged in and aware of the governing people's actions (note that I have not said the government's actions, for doing so suggests that the government is separate from the people, whereas we know that the government is of the people and by the people); democracy requires that those being governed (the people) hold the governors accountable.
And we're not there... because we aren't seeing our governing people put into place policy that is in the best interest of most people. Rather, we are seeing policy that benefits the wealthy, the corporations, and those with the loudest voices and the most airtime. And I haven't figured out how to change this... I've contemplated running for office, but I don't know what I would do to be different.
I am encouraged, however, because I think there are more and more people who are remembering that our freedom isn't free... and are also realizing that the price has changed over the years. Whereas one day we had to physically fight to obtain our freedom, we are now seeing that the fight is changing, evolving... and becoming more of a fight for ideas in the battlefield of our mind.
Which, of course, leads to a discussion on education. Some other time... have to finish moving and cleaning my old apartment for now, then experiment with a chilled zucchini and avocado soup for dinner...
One of the things that I like about living in Sweden is that I'm not in the US -- but maybe not for the reason you think. The US is a great place to be -- one of, if not the, greatest on earth. But what makes it so great is having time to reflect on it... and that reflection time is not easily had while one is in the US because there is so much going on - work, family, friends, sports, and keeping up on the celebs. I find that I need more time to think about the US in order for me to really appreciate it... because my appreciation for the US doesn't come at face value: access to low-priced goods from around the world, opportunities for jobs, and those other kinds of things that Americans might casually name off the top of their heads.
Rather... I appreciate the thoughtfulness with which the country was founded... the guiding principles, the checks and balances of power, and the opportunity for people to pursue the kind of life each person desired through the many freedoms afforded in the constitution. That's what made the US different - special - 230 years ago.
I'm not so sure that remains the case today. Many other nations afford people the same freedoms available in the US. For sure, there are plenty of places around the world that do NOT yet afford people the same freedom... but the fact that there are plenty of nations that do makes one realize that the soapbox of being 'the free-est country on earth' is no longer an adequate podium from which to lead.
Our geographic isolation from the world has in many ways protected us over the last two centuries. Unfortunately, it is that isolation that also provides the greatest challenge to us today. When Americans are unable to get accurate pictures of what is going on around the world - but rather depend on short soundbytes and 'if it bleeds, it leads' style news briefs - we risk deluding ourselves into believing that we remain the envy of the world.
This summer I found myself frequently wondering about the great experiment in democracy... wondering about the religious and educational backgrounds of the founders and the lives they lead. But more I wonder of the level of involvement: were more people involved in the initiation of this nation than our involved in its governance today? Was there more trust in those who were leading the country then than there is today? Did people care more about what was going on then than do now?
I don't know. And I don't begin to know how one might go about answering those questions. I only despair when I think of the ignorance of comments I hear as it relates to electing leaders today... and I wonder if that would have been the case then, also. And I wonder if that is something that the founders tried to take into consideration by providing votes only to property owners -- so that owning property served as a qualifier that assumed some level of education. It's an interesting question. Today we take for granted the idea that everyone has the right to vote. But in a soundbyte world where people's opinions shift with each 30-second advertisement, how can we begin to think that the half of Americans who vote really have a clue as to what is best for the country, let alone for themselves? I don't know... and I don't know that there is anything better... but I merely suggest that we should question in a Socratic fashion, rather than answer quickly and haphazardly with a Platonic attitude.
As I think about it, I would dare to say that relatively (and clearly absolutely) more people are involved in the political goings-on in the US today than were in the 18th century. But the question that I really want to ask: do the Americans who go about celebrating and enjoying the freedom and opportunity afforded by our great nation -- and that would include nearly all of us -- do we appreciate the effort that it takes to maintain that freedom and those opportunities, and are we doing our part?
I think the answer over the last six years is a loud and resonant "NO."
When US voter turnout hovers between 35-40% in mid-term elections and ranges from 50-55.3% for Presidential elections, I don't think we are doing our part. Because voting is a BARE MINIMUM -- in fact, it's far LESS than the minimum -- that is required to maintain our land of freedom and opportunity. Democracy is dependent upon people being actively engaged in and aware of the governing people's actions (note that I have not said the government's actions, for doing so suggests that the government is separate from the people, whereas we know that the government is of the people and by the people); democracy requires that those being governed (the people) hold the governors accountable.
And we're not there... because we aren't seeing our governing people put into place policy that is in the best interest of most people. Rather, we are seeing policy that benefits the wealthy, the corporations, and those with the loudest voices and the most airtime. And I haven't figured out how to change this... I've contemplated running for office, but I don't know what I would do to be different.
I am encouraged, however, because I think there are more and more people who are remembering that our freedom isn't free... and are also realizing that the price has changed over the years. Whereas one day we had to physically fight to obtain our freedom, we are now seeing that the fight is changing, evolving... and becoming more of a fight for ideas in the battlefield of our mind.
Which, of course, leads to a discussion on education. Some other time... have to finish moving and cleaning my old apartment for now, then experiment with a chilled zucchini and avocado soup for dinner...
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
A week of reflection...
It's been a good, busy week... a couple of days near Karlstad at a folkmusic festival - fiddles, guitars, and music a lot like bluegrass that I've enjoyed in the US. Then on to a conference in Vasteras for people around the world who do research related to sustainable development -- a great chance to meet new people who are doing some interesting work, as well as be reminded of the great need for more people to attend programs like the one I've just completed. After the conference I visited a friend in Ostersund for a few days... one day we biked out to a moose farm (www.moosegarden.com) and another day we saw a real steam locomotive that was traveling across in Sweden in celebration of 100 years of inland railroad.
All of the time on the train and inbetween has given me a fair amount of time to think and read. One book that I finished was Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything." It's a quite fascinating book, even though (and the author admits it) it doesn't live up to its name. It does, however, talk about science from the macro to the micro and how we've come to know what we do. And one reason why it's so interesting is because it's so incredibly new. So much of what we've learned in the area of physics came in the 17th and 18th centuries. Our knowledge about biology expanded greatly in the 19th century. Chemistry and a whole new bit of physics has come along this century... and we keep learning more and more faster and faster all of the time.
The impact this new knowledge has on us... is yet to be seen. But as science -- while not fully objective, it is the most objective method of understanding that we have -- begins to help us understand ourselves and the world around us and thus answer questions that have only been answered by myths and stories in the past... it challenges us in new ways. And I struggle with that challenge.
I tend to pick up on new ideas fairly quickly, in part because I get bored with old ideas that don't completely make sense. I'm frustrated by people who tend to cling to old ideas with an unwillingness to incorporate the new -- so I find myself having to work really, really hard to give people the space and time they need to come along. For one thing - I don't know that the world has time for everyone to come along... so when I respond harshly to "Jay Leno" ... well, I feel bad for having such a strong tone ... and yet I feel as though the tone is justified because we must get it right before it's too late. I'm an emotional mess of exasperation, frustration, and anger... and often find myself feeling as though I've been lied to (intentionally or not) over the last 30 years. (Ok, maybe only 25 years.)
Lied to about things like Columbus, Pilgrims and Indians, the age of the earth, and the importance of economic growth. It's less outright lying, and more a false front of knowledge... people who present themselves as experts who are really just continuing the myths that they've been told. I've done a bit of that myself.
For quite a while I've known that the more I learn, the more I would realize how much I don't know. And I'm ok with that. But lately, I've realized that the more I know, the more I know how little everyone else knows, too. And that is scary. At the conference last week, one of the keynote speakers said something like this:
"Because we go to the moon, we think we are what we are not. We think we are clever."
All of the time on the train and inbetween has given me a fair amount of time to think and read. One book that I finished was Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything." It's a quite fascinating book, even though (and the author admits it) it doesn't live up to its name. It does, however, talk about science from the macro to the micro and how we've come to know what we do. And one reason why it's so interesting is because it's so incredibly new. So much of what we've learned in the area of physics came in the 17th and 18th centuries. Our knowledge about biology expanded greatly in the 19th century. Chemistry and a whole new bit of physics has come along this century... and we keep learning more and more faster and faster all of the time.
The impact this new knowledge has on us... is yet to be seen. But as science -- while not fully objective, it is the most objective method of understanding that we have -- begins to help us understand ourselves and the world around us and thus answer questions that have only been answered by myths and stories in the past... it challenges us in new ways. And I struggle with that challenge.
I tend to pick up on new ideas fairly quickly, in part because I get bored with old ideas that don't completely make sense. I'm frustrated by people who tend to cling to old ideas with an unwillingness to incorporate the new -- so I find myself having to work really, really hard to give people the space and time they need to come along. For one thing - I don't know that the world has time for everyone to come along... so when I respond harshly to "Jay Leno" ... well, I feel bad for having such a strong tone ... and yet I feel as though the tone is justified because we must get it right before it's too late. I'm an emotional mess of exasperation, frustration, and anger... and often find myself feeling as though I've been lied to (intentionally or not) over the last 30 years. (Ok, maybe only 25 years.)
Lied to about things like Columbus, Pilgrims and Indians, the age of the earth, and the importance of economic growth. It's less outright lying, and more a false front of knowledge... people who present themselves as experts who are really just continuing the myths that they've been told. I've done a bit of that myself.
For quite a while I've known that the more I learn, the more I would realize how much I don't know. And I'm ok with that. But lately, I've realized that the more I know, the more I know how little everyone else knows, too. And that is scary. At the conference last week, one of the keynote speakers said something like this:
"Because we go to the moon, we think we are what we are not. We think we are clever."
Saturday, June 9, 2007
"'Jay Leno' Hits the Nail on the Head"
Folks... I'm afraid I can't let this piece of propaganda slip by without a response.
For one thing - it was written by Craig Smith. Only the last phrase comes from Jay Leno (as part of his comedy routine.) Regardless of who wrote it - though I do think it's an important note considering that Leno invades the millions of American homes on a nightly basis - it deserves a response... in fact, demands a response. We who are among the 67% of Americans who are unhappy with the direction the country is headed are obligated to respond and to clarify our happiness. Here's my stab at it:
For one thing - it was written by Craig Smith. Only the last phrase comes from Jay Leno (as part of his comedy routine.) Regardless of who wrote it - though I do think it's an important note considering that Leno invades the millions of American homes on a nightly basis - it deserves a response... in fact, demands a response. We who are among the 67% of Americans who are unhappy with the direction the country is headed are obligated to respond and to clarify our happiness. Here's my stab at it:
Do you really think that people in the US are complaining about all that they have?
Please don't be that naive. Americans are not unsatisfied with their quality of life. They are uncomfortable - in fact, unwilling to accept - the idea that their physical comfort must come at the cost of millions of others' lives, freedoms, and opportunities.
Maybe the 67% of people who are unhappy aren't the ones who think that their freedom has to come at the expense of the freedom of others. Maybe those people have taken the time to consider that the other 6.5 billion people in the world are also PEOPLE who have as much right to the riches of the world -- to fresh water, clean air, trees, the beauty of a sunny spring day... not to mention life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Maybe so many Americans are unhappy because they actually take time to THINK about what's going on in the WORLD rather than only what's going on in their own INDIVIDUAL lives...
... and when they do that, they realize that life is about more than just being happy as an individual person. Perhaps they are even bold enough to accept that the happiness they experience each and every day because of the physical luxuries they have is because the US is systematically undermining the capacity for people around the world to have a simple, decent life...
... perhaps those 69% of the people who are unhappy with the President's performance get that his approach to foreign policy (as well as that of Clinton, Bush Sr, and Reagan) is causing problems. BIG problems. Perhaps they see how so much focus on money, the economy, trade agreements, and tax-cuts for the wealthy are further tearing apart the fragile social fabric in the US and around the world...
... maybe those people who are unhappy realize that happiness doesn't come from physical comfort... that human needs are NOT wealth, power, influence, and flamboyance... but rather that HUMAN NEEDS ARE subsistence, affection, identity, understanding, protection, participation, creation, idleness, and freedom... and that these human needs are consistently undermined by a President and his administration and other like-minded individuals that have no grasp of history nor the fact that those who don't study and understand history are doomed to repeat it...
... perhaps these people realize that as long as America is actively extending the gap between quality of life in the US and quality of life elsewhere around the world, citizens of the US will never be safe. Instead, these frustrated Americans want to know that in living their own lives, they are allowing people in all corners of the world to also live their lives...
... in a world that is ever-shrinking, the US can not afford to be a lonely winner. It MUST support other peoples in 'winning' also, primarily by allowing people everywhere to rise to the occasion and participate freely and effectively in the global system...
... maybe the 69% of people who are unhappy are that way because they understand that they are being duped by special interests into having arguments about "taking God out of the Pledge of Allegiance." Folks - study your history. Get a clue. God's inclusion in the Pledge is not the issue we should be talking about. Neither are, unfortunately for our political system, hot-button issues like gay marriage and abortion. Again, GET A CLUE.
... it's time that we start talking about what is important to our future, and the future of kids and our grandkids and further generations to come. It's time that we start talking about how the US can offer a positive vision for what the future can look like by respecting the environment that provides all life-giving services -- whether it's the air that we breathe, the water that we drink, or the food that we eat; the WORLD NEEDS the US to provide a vision for taking care of its people in a way that can be replicated around the world.
Yes -- by all means people in America should be HAPPY for the blessings they have. But Americans MUST NOT be CONTENT with that... America still has a LONG way to go. The world needs the US's leadership now as much as ever. Just as the Good is the enemy of the Great - so complacency in America is the thing that will hold her back from being all that was envisioned by the founders and all that is dreamt about each and every day by our children and grandchildren.
MAYBE... JUST MAYBE... 2 OUT OF 3 AMERICANS ARE UNHAPPY BECAUSE THEY ARE TIRED OF AMERICANS FOCUSING SOLELY ON THEIR OWN HAPPINESS.
If the note from "Jay Leno" (below) "hits the nail on the head," then I hope this message drives that nail deep enough to awaken your head AND your heart. Not only should Americans, as "Jay" says "thank God several times a day, or at least be thankful and appreciative;" WE should ALSO strive to ensure that others around the world have the opportunities that we have... or at least that we aren't PREVENTING them from having those opportunities.
Subject: Fwd: FW: [Fwd: Fw: Jay Leno "Hits the nail on the head."]
"The other day I was reading Newsweek magazine and came across some poll data I found rather hard to believe. It must be true given the source, right?
The Newsweek poll alleges that 67 percent of Americans are unhappy with the direction the country is headed and 69 percent of the country is unhappy with the performance of the president. In essence 2/3s of the citizenry just ain't happy and want a change.
So being the knuckle dragger I am, I started thinking,''What we are so unhappy about?''
Is it that we have electricity and running water 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? Is our unhappiness the result of having air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter? Could it be that 95.4 percent of these unhappy folks have a job? Maybe it is the ability to walk into a grocery store at any time and see more food in moments than Darfur has seen in the last year?
Maybe it is the ability to drive from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean without having to present identification papers as we move through
each state? Or possibly the hundreds of clean and safe motels we would
find along the way that can provide temporary shelter?
I guess having thousands of restaurants with varying cuisine from around the world is just not good enough. Or could it be that when we wreck our car, emergency workers show up and provide services to help all and even send a helicopter to take you to the hospital.
Perhaps you are one of the 70 percent of Americans who own a home. You may be upset with knowing that in the unfortunate case of a fire, a group of trained firefighters will appear in moments and use top notch equipment to extinguish the flames thus saving you, your family and your belongings.
Or if, while at home watching one of your many flat screen TVs, a burglar or prowler intrudes , an officer equipped with a gun and a bullet-proof vest will come to defend you and your family against attack or loss. This all in the backdrop of a neighborhood free of bombs or militias raping and pillaging the residents. Neighborhoods where 90 percent of teenagers own cell phones and computers.
How about the complete religious, social and political freedoms we enjoy that are the envy of everyone in the world? Maybe that is what has 67 percent of you folks unhappy.
Fact is, we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats the world has ever seen. No wonder the world loves the U.S., yet has a great disdain for its citizens. They see us for what we are. The most blessed people in the world who do nothing but complain about what we don't have, and what we hate about the country instead of thanking the good Lord we live here.
I know, I know. What about the president who took us into war and has no plan to get us out? The president who has a measly 31 percent approval
rating? Is this the same president who guided the nation in the dark
days after 9/11? The president that cut taxes to bring an economy out of recession? Could this be the same guy who has been called every name in the book for succeeding in keeping all the spoiled ungrateful brats safe from terrorist attacks?
The commander in chief of an all-volunteer army that is out there defending you and me? Did you hear how bad the President is on the news or talk show? Did this news affect you so much, make you so unhappy you couldn't take a look around for yourself and see all the good things and be glad?
Think about it......are you upset at the President because he actually caused you personal pain OR is it because the "Media" told you he was failing to kiss your sorry ungrateful behind every day
Make no mistake about it. The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have volunteered to serve, and in many cases may have died for your freedom.
There is currently no draft in this country. They didn't have to go.
They are able to refuse to go and end up with either a ''general''
discharge, an ''other than honorable'' discharge or, worst case scenario, a ''dishonorable'' discharge after a few days in the brig.
So why then the flat-out discontentment in the minds of 69 percent of Americans? Say what you want but I blame it on the media. If it bleeds it leads and they specialize in bad news. Everybody will watch a car crash with blood and guts. How many will watch kids selling lemonade at the corner? The media knows this and media outlets are for- profit corporations. They offer what sells, and when criticized, try to defend
their actions by "justifying" them in one way or another. Just ask why
they tried to allow a murderer like O.J. Simpson to write a book about how he didn't kill his wife, but if he did he would have done it this way......Insane!
Stop buying the negativism you are fed everyday by the media. Shut off the TV, burn Newsweek , and use the New York Times for the bottom of your bird cage. Then start being grateful for all we have as a country. There is exponentially more good than bad.
We are among the most blessed people on Earth and should thank God several times a day, or at least be thankful and appreciative."
"With hurricanes, tornados, fires out of control, mud slides, flooding, severe thunderstorms tearing up the country from one end to another, and with the threat of bird flu and terrorist attacks, "Are we sure this is a good time to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance?"
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Decisions
I haven't posted for a while. Over a month in fact. In part due to focus on soon-to-be-finished thesis: Community Food Systems: Meeting Human Needs and Working toward Sustainability. In part because I simply haven't had anything that I really felt was worth writing about. And largely in part because of the frustration I am feeling toward the US in general. I've borrowed the text below from a friend to introduce the link at the bottom of the page... the link pretty much sums up my frustration and despair. Actually - my lack of confidence in one individual's ability to do anything about it is my cause for despair. Am I to return to a country full of people so blind to the recent and ongoing atrocities that it commits? Am I to return to such a country and pay taxes and support big businesses who wear blinders that limit their vision to financial records? While it may be a great place for individuals to live and pursue opportunities... it's a really atrocious place from a big-picture view. And thus my dilemma: do I live my life for myself -- taking advantage of the lot in life that I've been given, living a physically comfortable life? Or do I live my life for a greater good -- not knowing what that means, but knowing that it means going against the current... perhaps with less physical comfort, but with a clear conscience.
Decisions.
Anyway- here's the email from Michelle:
An interesting piece by a professor (Churchill) who has ruffled a few too many feathers at U Colorado. Boulder. Some complained about his statements, and it launched an investigation into his conduct. In the course of the investigation, some irregularities in his research were discovered, which spawned another investigation into his academic integrity. This second investigation has led to his being fired (he was a tenured professor), and he is threatening to sue because he believes it is all about his unpopular political views.
Anyway, I thought it was interesting because it is the clearest I have ever seen anyone publicly draw the connections between American foreign policy, domestic ignorance, and "terrorist" activity. Kind of a SP4 "whole-system" perspective on the Iraq situation. Definitely controversial here in the US (at one point he refers to the stock brokers that worked in the WTC as "little Eichmanns") - an interesting read.
http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill.html
Decisions.
Anyway- here's the email from Michelle:
An interesting piece by a professor (Churchill) who has ruffled a few too many feathers at U Colorado. Boulder. Some complained about his statements, and it launched an investigation into his conduct. In the course of the investigation, some irregularities in his research were discovered, which spawned another investigation into his academic integrity. This second investigation has led to his being fired (he was a tenured professor), and he is threatening to sue because he believes it is all about his unpopular political views.
Anyway, I thought it was interesting because it is the clearest I have ever seen anyone publicly draw the connections between American foreign policy, domestic ignorance, and "terrorist" activity. Kind of a SP4 "whole-system" perspective on the Iraq situation. Definitely controversial here in the US (at one point he refers to the stock brokers that worked in the WTC as "little Eichmanns") - an interesting read.
http://www.kerspleb
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
You are what you grow...
Today... a quick link to a NY Times article: You are what you grow.
It's a short (3 pages) read providing an overview to the US Farm Bill, and it suggests that it is time for a major overhaul of that piece of legislation. I agree.
It's a short (3 pages) read providing an overview to the US Farm Bill, and it suggests that it is time for a major overhaul of that piece of legislation. I agree.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Conspiracies & Hope
Yesterday's post-thesis, "I need to think about something else for a while" adventures led me on some interesting journeys. It started with the news... this headline caught my eye: "Students attend first integrated prom." I was expecting to read the story and find out that it was some place in Africa -- perhaps in South Africa where apartheid ended a little more than a decade ago. So I read the story... including this quote: "I've asked, 'Why can't you come [to the Prom]?' and they're like, 'My mommy and daddy -- they don't agree with being with the colored people,' which I think is crazy," she said.
I was quite surprised to find out that the story was based on a place that was less than 50 miles from where I lived for nearly 5 years... the story was from Ashburn, GA -- 160 miles south of Atlanta. Read the full story at: http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/04/23/turner.prom/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
Then I made the mistake of listening to Dan, who pointed me to a website where one can watch all kinds of documentaries... and I came across one called "Bush link to Kennedy Assassination." I've never much subscribed to conspiracy theories... haven't cared for the idea, no considered them to be serious alternatives. But my curiosity got the better of me -- I've been curious about the JFK assassination for quite some time -- and I watched the film. Interesting. Lots of little bits of evidence put forth that raise quite significant questions about George HW Bush... I don't want to elaborate on all of them, but let's just say there is pretty convincing case. And that's just JFK's assassination, to say nothing over some other theories that are out there regarding Bay of Pigs, Watergate, and Iran-Contra.
While these are all just theories... they led me to wonder something I've been wondering frequently over the last 7 years, and that is: How in this world can a third-rate recovering alcoholic who has never been successful at much of anything become the President of the US? I must say that conspiracy theories shed quite a bit of light on that in the way of networks, favors, and connections... and it leads to a necessity to ask questions about more current events, particularly 9/11 and Iraq. But, like the media and vast majority of the public.. I don't have time for that right now. I have a thesis to work on.
And work related to that thesis leads me on interesting journeys as it relates to our food... I continue to find ways to be disgusted by the food industry... factory farmed meat to ready-to-eat meals, other poor substitutes for "food"... mostly brought on by our own ignorance.
All of these things seem to happen out of our ignorance. Or our apathy. Either way, when I'm looking at the things we are doing to the world... climate change, species loss, and so many other things that are leading us in the opposite direction of a sustainable world... these two -- ignorance and apathy -- will be what decides whether or not we can make it. So while I'm weighed down by the awesome amounts of ignorance and apathy that dominate... I'm buoyed by the hope that comes from knowing how fast things can change when people decide it's time to change. Let's make the decision sooner rather than later...
Then I made the mistake of listening to Dan, who pointed me to a website where one can watch all kinds of documentaries... and I came across one called "Bush link to Kennedy Assassination." I've never much subscribed to conspiracy theories... haven't cared for the idea, no considered them to be serious alternatives. But my curiosity got the better of me -- I've been curious about the JFK assassination for quite some time -- and I watched the film. Interesting. Lots of little bits of evidence put forth that raise quite significant questions about George HW Bush... I don't want to elaborate on all of them, but let's just say there is pretty convincing case. And that's just JFK's assassination, to say nothing over some other theories that are out there regarding Bay of Pigs, Watergate, and Iran-Contra.
While these are all just theories... they led me to wonder something I've been wondering frequently over the last 7 years, and that is: How in this world can a third-rate recovering alcoholic who has never been successful at much of anything become the President of the US? I must say that conspiracy theories shed quite a bit of light on that in the way of networks, favors, and connections... and it leads to a necessity to ask questions about more current events, particularly 9/11 and Iraq. But, like the media and vast majority of the public.. I don't have time for that right now. I have a thesis to work on.
And work related to that thesis leads me on interesting journeys as it relates to our food... I continue to find ways to be disgusted by the food industry... factory farmed meat to ready-to-eat meals, other poor substitutes for "food"... mostly brought on by our own ignorance.
All of these things seem to happen out of our ignorance. Or our apathy. Either way, when I'm looking at the things we are doing to the world... climate change, species loss, and so many other things that are leading us in the opposite direction of a sustainable world... these two -- ignorance and apathy -- will be what decides whether or not we can make it. So while I'm weighed down by the awesome amounts of ignorance and apathy that dominate... I'm buoyed by the hope that comes from knowing how fast things can change when people decide it's time to change. Let's make the decision sooner rather than later...
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Earth day...
I'm borrowing a page from Antoine today... so he gets full credit for the thought and the product. The page is about earth day and the plethora of lists of things that you can do "to save the planet." Well... yes... do those things. But changing a light bulb and inflating your tires probably won't do it.
So here's Antoine's list... (slightly modified) which, if we all took to heart, might lead us to actually saving the planet... or at least extending its inhabitability for a little while longer. And that's a good thing.
1. Living and Driving
Consider the living and driving issues together. Envision a future without a car and start making strategic moves towards that goal. Start by walking, cycling and taking transit as much as you can. Move closer to work, or at least close to transit that can take you there. Car dependence not only pollutes but it can make cities ugly and dumb, and its citizens fat. If you must drive, eco-drive (fuel efficient car, inflated tires, low speeds, no sharp accelerations, consolidated trips.)
2. Stuff
Think about the amount of stuff you buy. The less, the better.
Buy local, seasonal and organic. You can not only save energy but help make local agriculture viable. When local agriculture doesn't pay anymore, farmland is often turned into strip malls and subdivisions. I prioritize local and seasonal above organic, but it's a long discussion. Aside from ethics, meat takes a lot more land and energy to produce. Limit your consumption of meat and try to find grass-fed organic meat. Be careful about fish... many species are endangered - look at the Monterrey Aquarium seafood Guide.
4. Compost and Recycling
When you buy something, you are just borrowing the molecules for a bit. So think about your intervention as being part of a closed loop.
Don't use the dryer. Just don't... unless you really have to. After a month, you will already notice a difference in your power bill. Unplug everything that can be unplugged when it's not in use. It may be "off" but it continues to use energy. Of course, use compact fluorescent bulbs instead of incandescent ones... but don't put them in the trash when you're done - they contain mercury.
6. Comfort
Air conditioning is for when it's so hot your clothes cling to you and you can't sleep. So keep it for emergencies. Pulling your blinds down during the day also helps.
Heating is not designed to grow banana trees indoors and sweaters look great. Add the two together and 20 degrees should be just fine.
7. Water
Even if water is abundant where you live, water use is actually electricity use. The City of Toronto spends more energy pumping water than running its entire transit system. If you must have a yard, use species that require as little watering as possible; use a low-flow shower head; use a front-loading washer; fill the dishwasher or wash your dishes as if you were in Israel.
8. Travel
Ooooh that's the hardest one... the truth is that you can do all of the above and cancel a lot of the good you've done with just a couple flights... try to vacation closer... take a train or fill a fuel-efficient car with your friends. This is the toughest one for me.
9. Dissemination
Keep telling people about the above. They'll roll their eyes and call you names... but you will set the wheels in motion and a few months later, you may notice some changes!
10. Democracy
Democracy is you. If you don't like it, change it! Vote, get elected, make deputations, write letters. It actually makes a difference. Even if it doesn't, you'll feel good about yourself - and you can keep on babbling...
So here's Antoine's list... (slightly modified) which, if we all took to heart, might lead us to actually saving the planet... or at least extending its inhabitability for a little while longer. And that's a good thing.
1. Living and Driving
Consider the living and driving issues together. Envision a future without a car and start making strategic moves towards that goal. Start by walking, cycling and taking transit as much as you can. Move closer to work, or at least close to transit that can take you there. Car dependence not only pollutes but it can make cities ugly and dumb, and its citizens fat. If you must drive, eco-drive (fuel efficient car, inflated tires, low speeds, no sharp accelerations, consolidated trips.)
2. Stuff
Think about the amount of stuff you buy. The less, the better.
- Shop in your closets first. Can you adapt what you have? In general, reuse, borrow, share and buy used. If I can do it (OK I try,) you can do it too.
- Start by minimizing packaging and bringing bags with you when you shop.
- Buy local products, support your local economy and minimize the impact of transportation. The closer the better, although shipping by boat is much more energy-efficient than by truck. The worst is by air. (of course don't buy local crap. And sometimes it's important to send a signal to the market by temporarily buying something from far away. Supporting faraway economies can be strategic too - like Fair Trade.)
- Support small and local businesses - they can be more responsive to your needs and wants and the money stays in your community.
- Try to figure out how much energy was used to make and transport the product.
- Renewable and recyclable materials are best.
- Go for durability: repairable quality products with replaceable parts.
- Read the labels and ask questions: Where is it from? How was it made? Who made it? What is it made of? Is it recycled, recyclable? How long is it expected to last? If they don't know, make them find out.
Buy local, seasonal and organic. You can not only save energy but help make local agriculture viable. When local agriculture doesn't pay anymore, farmland is often turned into strip malls and subdivisions. I prioritize local and seasonal above organic, but it's a long discussion. Aside from ethics, meat takes a lot more land and energy to produce. Limit your consumption of meat and try to find grass-fed organic meat. Be careful about fish... many species are endangered - look at the Monterrey Aquarium seafood Guide.
4. Compost and Recycling
When you buy something, you are just borrowing the molecules for a bit. So think about your intervention as being part of a closed loop.
- Recycle what you can, but this should not absolve you from buying the stuff in the first place. Many materials are expensive to recycle and get downgraded in the process. For example, plastic pop bottles do not become new pop bottles but are used for non-food products.
- It doesn't make sense to landfill food. You will be shocked to see how much your trash is reduced once you take anything organic out. Compost in your yard or pressure your municipality to start a collection program.
Don't use the dryer. Just don't... unless you really have to. After a month, you will already notice a difference in your power bill. Unplug everything that can be unplugged when it's not in use. It may be "off" but it continues to use energy. Of course, use compact fluorescent bulbs instead of incandescent ones... but don't put them in the trash when you're done - they contain mercury.
6. Comfort
Air conditioning is for when it's so hot your clothes cling to you and you can't sleep. So keep it for emergencies. Pulling your blinds down during the day also helps.
Heating is not designed to grow banana trees indoors and sweaters look great. Add the two together and 20 degrees should be just fine.
7. Water
Even if water is abundant where you live, water use is actually electricity use. The City of Toronto spends more energy pumping water than running its entire transit system. If you must have a yard, use species that require as little watering as possible; use a low-flow shower head; use a front-loading washer; fill the dishwasher or wash your dishes as if you were in Israel.
8. Travel
Ooooh that's the hardest one... the truth is that you can do all of the above and cancel a lot of the good you've done with just a couple flights... try to vacation closer... take a train or fill a fuel-efficient car with your friends. This is the toughest one for me.
9. Dissemination
Keep telling people about the above. They'll roll their eyes and call you names... but you will set the wheels in motion and a few months later, you may notice some changes!
10. Democracy
Democracy is you. If you don't like it, change it! Vote, get elected, make deputations, write letters. It actually makes a difference. Even if it doesn't, you'll feel good about yourself - and you can keep on babbling...
Thursday, April 12, 2007
The Real Climate Change Censorship
No words from me today, but Mr. Monbiot's words are sufficient to raise the blood pressure a bit....
From http://monbiot.com/
It’s happening, it’s systematic, and it is precisely the opposite story to the one the papers are telling.
By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian, 10th April 2007.
The drafting of reports by the world’s pre-eminent group of climate scientists is an odd process. For many months scientists contributing to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tussle over the evidence. Nothing gets published unless it achieves consensus. This means that the panel’s reports are extremely conservative – even timid. It also means that they are as trustworthy as a scientific document can be.
Then, when all is settled among the scientists, the politicians sweep in and seek to excise from the summaries anything which threatens their interests. While the US government has traditionally been the scientists’ chief opponent, this time the assault was led by Saudi Arabia, supported by China and Russia(1,2).
The scientists fight back, but they always have to make some concessions. The report released on Friday, for example, was shorn of the warning that “North America is expected to experience locally severe economic damage, plus substantial ecosystem, social and cultural disruption from climate change related events”(3). David Wasdell, an accredited reviewer for the panel, claims that the summary of the science the IPCC published in February was purged of most of its references to “positive feedbacks”: climate change accelerating itself(4).
This is the opposite of the story endlessly repeated in the right-wing press: that the IPCC, in collusion with governments, is conspiring to exaggerate the science. No one explains why governments should seek to amplify their own failures. In the wacky world of the climate conspiracists, no explanations are required. The world’s most conservative scientific body has somehow been transformed into a cabal of screaming demagogues.
This is just one aspect of a story which is endlessly told the wrong way around. In the Sunday Telegraph, the Daily Mail, in columns by Dominic Lawson, Tom Utley and Janet Daley the allegation is constantly repeated that climate scientists and environmentalists are trying to “shut down debate”. Those who say that manmade global warming is not taking place, they claim, are being censored.
Something is missing from their accusations: a single valid example. The closest any of them have been able to get is two letters sent – by the Royal Society and by the US senators Jay Rockefeller and Olympia Snowe – to that delicate flower ExxonMobil, asking that it cease funding lobbyists who deliberately distort climate science(5,6). These correspondents had no power to enforce their wishes. They were merely urging Exxon to change its practices. If everyone who urges is a censor, then the comment pages of the newspapers must be closed in the name of free speech.
In an interview four weeks ago, Martin Durkin, who made Channel 4’s film The Great Global Warming Swindle, claimed that he was subject to “invisible censorship”(7). He appears to have forgotten that he had just been given 90 minutes of prime time television to expound his theory that climate change is a great green conspiracy. So what did this censorship amount to? Complaints about one of his programmes had been upheld by the Independent Television Commission. It found that “the views of the four complainants, as made clear to the interviewer, had been distorted by selective editing” and that they had been “misled as to the content and purpose of the programmes when they agreed to take part.”(8) This, apparently, makes him a martyr.
If you want to know what real censorship looks like, let me show you what has been happening on the other side of the fence. Scientists whose research demonstrates that climate change is taking place have been repeatedly threatened and silenced and their findings edited or suppressed.
The Union of Concerned Scientists found that 58% of the 279 climate scientists working at federal agencies in the US who responded to its survey reported that they had experienced one of the following constraints. 1. “Pressure to eliminate the words ‘climate change,’ ‘global warming’, or other similar terms” from their communications. 2. Editing of scientific reports by their superiors which “changed the meaning of scientific findings”. 3. Statements by officials at their agencies which misrepresented their findings. 4. “The disappearance or unusual delay of websites, reports, or other science-based materials relating to climate”. 5. “New or unusual administrative requirements that impair climate-related work”. 6. “Situations in which scientists have actively objected to, resigned from, or removed themselves from a project because of pressure to change scientific findings.” They reported 435 incidents of political interference over the past five years(9).
In 2003, the White House gutted the climate change section of a report by the Environmental Protection Agency(10). It deleted references to studies showing that global warming is caused by manmade emissions. It added a reference to a study partly funded by the American Petroleum Institute, which suggested that temperatures are not rising. Eventually the agency decided to drop the section altogether.
After Thomas Knutson at the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) published a paper in 2004 linking rising emissions with more intense tropical cyclones, he was blocked by his superiors from speaking to the media. He agreed to one request to appear on MSNBC, but a public affairs officer at NOAA rang the station to tell the programme that Knutson was “too tired” to conduct the interview. The official explained to him that the “White House said no”. All media inquiries were to be routed instead to a scientist who believed there was no connection between global warming and hurricanes(11).
Last year the top climate scientist at NASA, James Hansen, reported that his bosses were trying to censor his lectures, papers and web postings. He was told by public relations officials at the agency that there would be “dire consequences” if he continued to call for rapid reductions in greenhouse gases(12).
Last month, the Alaskan branch of the US Fish and Wildlife Service told its scientists that anyone travelling to the Arctic must understand “the administration’s position on climate change, polar bears, and sea ice and will not be speaking on or responding to these issues.”(13)
At hearings in the US Congress three weeks ago, Philip Cooney, a former aide to White House who was previously working at the American Petroleum Institute, admitted he had made hundreds of changes to government reports about climate change on behalf of the Bush administration(14). Though he is not a scientist, he had struck out evidence that glaciers were retreating and inserted phrases suggesting that there was serious scientific doubt about global warming(15).
The guardians of free speech in Britain aren’t above attempting a little suppression, either. The Guardian and I have now received several letters from the climate sceptic Viscount Monckton, threatening us with libel proceedings after I challenged his claims about climate science(16,17,18,19). On two of these occasions he has demanded that articles are removed from the internet. Monckton is the man who wrote to Senators Rockefeller and Snowe, claiming that their letter to ExxonMobil offends the corporation’s “right of free speech”(20).
After Martin Durkin’s film was broadcast, one of the scientists it featured, Professor Carl Wunsch, complained that his views on climate change had been misrepresented. Wunsch says he has now received a legal letter from Durkin’s production company, Wag TV, threatening to sue him for defamation unless he agrees to make a public statement that he was neither misrepresented nor misled(21).
Would it be terribly impolite to suggest that when those who deny that climate change is happening complain of censorship, a certain amount of projection is taking place?
www.monbiot.com
References:
1. Catherine Brahic, 6th April 2007. Climate change is here now, says major report. NewScientist.com
2. David Adam, 7th April 2007. Scientists’ stark warning on reality of warmer world. The Guardian.
3. Roger Harrabin, 6th April 2007. The Today Programme, Radio 4.
4. David Wasdell, February 2007. Political Corruption of the IPCC Report? http://www.meridian.org.uk/Resources/Global%20Dynamics/IPCC/contents.htm
5. Bob Ward, the Royal Society, 4th September 2006. Letter to Nick Thomas, Esso Ltd. You can see the letter here: http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2006/09/19/LettertoNick.pdf
6. John D. Rockefeller IV and Olympia Snowe, 27th October 2006. Letter to Rex W. Tillerson, ExxonMobil. http://snowe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=9acba744-802a-23ad-47be-2683985c724e
7. Martin Durkin, 9th March 2007. Interview with Brendan O’Neill. http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/earticle/2948/
8. Independent Television Commission, 1st April 1998. Channel Four to Apologise to Four Interviewees in “Against Nature” Series. Press Release.
9. Union of Concerned Scientists and Government Accountability Project, February 2007. Atmosphere of Pressure: Political Interference in Federal Climate Science. http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/scientific_integrity/Atmosphere-of-Pressure.pdf
10. Andrew Revkin and Katharine Seelye, 19th June 2003. Report by the E.P.A. Leaves Out Data on Climate Change. The New York Times.
11. Union of Concerned Scientists and Government Accountability Project, ibid.
12. Andrew Revkin, 29th January 2006. Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him. The New York Times.
13. Andrew Revkin, 8th March 2007. Memos Tell Officials How to Discuss Climate. The New York Times.
14. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 19th March 2007. Committee Examines Political Interference with Climate Science. http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1214
15. Andrew Revkin, 8th June 2005. Bush Aide Softened Greenhouse Gas Links to Global Warming. The New York Times.
16. Viscount Monckton, 14th November 2006. Email to the Guardian.
17. Viscount Monckton, 23rd November 2006. Letter to the Guardian.
18. Viscount Monckton, 23rd November 2006. Letter to George Monbiot
19. Viscount Monckton, 24th November 2006. Email to George Monbiot.
20. Viscount Monckton, 11th December 2006. Uphold Free Speech About Climate Change or Resign. Open letter to Senators Snowe and Rockefeller. http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061212_monckton.pdf
21. Carl Wunsch, pers comm.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Time to Think
Last night I had the chance to celebrate a friend's birthday by visiting a nearby farm... it was wonderful to be out amidst the trees and fields. It's really not even much of a farm - it's more just being out in the open space with trees and meadows. The ten of us shared space around a small fire in the evening, then slept on the floor in the house.
I'd like to reflect on one of my buttons that was pushed last night... we were playing word games like "What's behind the green glass door?" While I enjoy mental puzzles as much as anyone... I came to realize how much "those in the know" take delight over those who aren't. The two or three people who know the game at the start say things like "there are swimmers and a pool but no divers" or "there are collars and sleeves but no shirts"... and this can go on for quite some time. Those who aren't in the know are to figure out the method to determining what is behind the green glass doors... and then begin contributing.
My realization of the delight of those in the know took me on a short thought journey. So often we talk about how concentrations of power - political, economic, or other forms of power - tend not to be a good thing because the power is easily abused, corrupted, etc. But when we are the one in the empowered elite, we tend not to see that concentrated power is a bad thing... we're often too busy taking delight in the power that we have.
With a game like "What's behind the green glass door?" -- the game is no longer so much fun for those in the know if/when everyone figures out how to determine what is behind the doors. In this case, knowing - or figuring out - the trick gives you power over others who don't know. Knowledge is power.
While the analogy of this game only goes so far -- it is, afterall, just a game -- I think it serves to illustrate the point that concentrated power can cause problems. Certainly there can be a discussion about whether knowledge is the same as other forms of power -- knowledge is theoretically infinite -- it's something that you can give, and in giving get more of... whereas with most things, at least in conventional wisdom, if you give it away you no longer have it (i.e. money, decision-making authority, etc.)
It's another reminder for me to be careful with the power that I wield -- in all of its forms. From the power of my vote to the power of my (diminishing!) bank account to the power of my thoughts... with power comes responsibility.
Ok - back to the farm. As I biked home shortly after sunrise this morning, the warmth of the rays and the songs of the birds following an evening with friends... well, it's a great way to remember what is important in life... and it helps me to realize how much I miss the time I spent in the timber as a kid.
PS. The trick to the grEEn glaSS dOOr game is that everything that is behind the doors has a double letter in it... so "abuse" and "power" are not behind the doors, but "happiness" is doubly so.
I'd like to reflect on one of my buttons that was pushed last night... we were playing word games like "What's behind the green glass door?" While I enjoy mental puzzles as much as anyone... I came to realize how much "those in the know" take delight over those who aren't. The two or three people who know the game at the start say things like "there are swimmers and a pool but no divers" or "there are collars and sleeves but no shirts"... and this can go on for quite some time. Those who aren't in the know are to figure out the method to determining what is behind the green glass doors... and then begin contributing.
My realization of the delight of those in the know took me on a short thought journey. So often we talk about how concentrations of power - political, economic, or other forms of power - tend not to be a good thing because the power is easily abused, corrupted, etc. But when we are the one in the empowered elite, we tend not to see that concentrated power is a bad thing... we're often too busy taking delight in the power that we have.
With a game like "What's behind the green glass door?" -- the game is no longer so much fun for those in the know if/when everyone figures out how to determine what is behind the doors. In this case, knowing - or figuring out - the trick gives you power over others who don't know. Knowledge is power.
While the analogy of this game only goes so far -- it is, afterall, just a game -- I think it serves to illustrate the point that concentrated power can cause problems. Certainly there can be a discussion about whether knowledge is the same as other forms of power -- knowledge is theoretically infinite -- it's something that you can give, and in giving get more of... whereas with most things, at least in conventional wisdom, if you give it away you no longer have it (i.e. money, decision-making authority, etc.)
It's another reminder for me to be careful with the power that I wield -- in all of its forms. From the power of my vote to the power of my (diminishing!) bank account to the power of my thoughts... with power comes responsibility.
Ok - back to the farm. As I biked home shortly after sunrise this morning, the warmth of the rays and the songs of the birds following an evening with friends... well, it's a great way to remember what is important in life... and it helps me to realize how much I miss the time I spent in the timber as a kid.
PS. The trick to the grEEn glaSS dOOr game is that everything that is behind the doors has a double letter in it... so "abuse" and "power" are not behind the doors, but "happiness" is doubly so.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
WTO
The following three paragraphs are taken from Paul Hawken's experience of the World Trade Organization (WTO) meeting in Seattle in 1999. The full text of his journal entry can be found on the web at places like this.
When the “The Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations” was enacted April 15th, 1994 in Marrakech, it was recorded as a 550-page agreement that was then sent to Congress for passage. Ralph Nader offered to donate $10,000 to any charity of a congressman’s choice if any of them signed an affidavit saying they had read it and could answer several questions about it. Only one congressman - Senator Hank Brown, a Colorado Republican - took him up on it. After reading the document, Brown changed his opinion and voted against the Agreement. There were no public hearings, dialogue, or education. What passed is an Agreement that gives the WTO the ability to overrule or undermine international conventions, acts, treaties, and agreements. The WTO directly violates “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights” adopted by member nations of the United Nations, not to mention Agenda 21. (The proposed draft agenda presented inSeattle
...
When the “The Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations” was enacted April 15th, 1994 in Marrakech, it was recorded as a 550-page agreement that was then sent to Congress for passage. Ralph Nader offered to donate $10,000 to any charity of a congressman’s choice if any of them signed an affidavit saying they had read it and could answer several questions about it. Only one congressman - Senator Hank Brown, a Colorado Republican - took him up on it. After reading the document, Brown changed his opinion and voted against the Agreement. There were no public hearings, dialogue, or education. What passed is an Agreement that gives the WTO the ability to overrule or undermine international conventions, acts, treaties, and agreements. The WTO directly violates “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights” adopted by member nations of the United Nations, not to mention Agenda 21. (The proposed draft agenda presented in
...
Those who marched and protested opposed the tyrannies of globalization, uniformity, and corporatization, but they did not necessarily oppose internationalization of trade. Economist Herman Daly has long made the distinction between the two. Internationalization means trade between nations. Globalization refers to a system where there are uniform rules for the entire world, a world in which capital and goods move at will without the rule of individual nations. Nations, for all their faults, set trade standards. Those who are willing to meet those standards can do business with them. Do nations abuse this? Always and constantly, the
One recent example of the power of the WTO is Chiquita Brands International, a $2 billion dollar corporation which recently made a large donation to the Democratic Party. Coincidentally, the
I'm sharing this because it was quite amazing to me as I read it a couple of days ago, and now re-reading I continue to be quite amazed. I'll be the first to admit that I don't know much about the WTO... the thing is, I'm willing to bet that you - and your elected representatives - don't know much, either. And that may just cause me to change the name of this blog, because it's one thing that I can't make sense of.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
