Can I just say how wonderful it is to have a group of friends who are with me in the struggle to be an ethical consumer in the United States of America?
I was out gift shopping today, and was feeling overwhelmed with how tedious the decision making process is when trying to be a conscious consumer, and found that I had good people that I could call and talk to about it, who understood the dilemma without making me feel silly for caring, or uncaring for considering buying the thing anyway. It was so good to be reminded that I'm not alone. I was encouraged and supported, and I realized how lucky I am to have such good, understanding people in my life.
Thanks guys! I hope everyone has a wonderful Christmas and New Year!
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Honey, when are we moving to Scandinavia?
... really I'd settle for almost anywhere in Europe. Except Greece.
http://www.poverty.com/internationalaid.html
http://www.poverty.com/internationalaid.html
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Happy Christmas Consumption!
Lisa sent me a link to this video called the Story of Stuff. 'Tis the season!
I've posted part 5, and the other parts can be seen here.
I've posted part 5, and the other parts can be seen here.
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
no title...
could adequately describe this video. It's long, and you might feel like stopping it part way through. But don't.
when closed minds collide
In honor of the Mormons who came to my door today:
Christian Guy Totally Owns Mormons - Watch more free videos
The arrogance coming from both ends of this conversation is hilarious to me, and yet, so very disturbing.
Christian Guy Totally Owns Mormons - Watch more free videos
The arrogance coming from both ends of this conversation is hilarious to me, and yet, so very disturbing.
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
NPR in Iowa
This NPR interview with an Iowa pastor regarding presidential candidates caught my attention today. They probably shouldn't have, but a couple things really surprised me.
First, the pastor being interviewed casually notes:
...pastors are saying 'after years of teaching that Mormonism is a cult how do we go out now and say to our congregations 'vote for a man who's a member of a cult but represents the values that we hold dear.''
So, there's no pretending anymore. Churches are telling people who to vote for. I guess I was just shocked at how freely he admitted it, and seems to see absolutely nothing ethically wrong with that. These tax-exempt organizations have become a political platform rather than some sort of, I don't know, place to worship God.
Later, NPR's Michele Norris asks the pastor what his congregates would do if, in the final election, they had to choose between two candidates they disagree with on just two issues.
Pastor: If we wound up at election time next November with a candidate who-- on both sides that was pro-choice, pro-civil union or same sex marriage, that would cause a lot of people to really have to dig down and decide 'do I vote for the lesser of two evils (as they may look at it) or do I just not vote at all?'
Norris: Is it possible that not just here in Iowa but in the-- adding to the general election, that Christian conservatives might stay at home, might vote down ticket but sit out the presidential contest?
Pastor: I think that is possible.
Norris: Really?
Pastor: I do think it's possible... because I have talked with people and I've asked, you know, if this scenario was presented what would you do and they said "well, I just wouldn't participate.'
I love the surprise in Norris' voice when she says 'really?'
I do not understand how people who claim to follow Jesus, who claim to believe that Jesus is God Incarnate, base their entire value system on two issues that JESUS NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT, and completely ignore what Jesus actually said: HELP THE POOR. He was pretty clear that if you ignore the poor, you're ignoring Jesus and he wants nothing to do with you, and if you feed and clothe the poor, you're caring for him and he'll be happy to see you.
There's also this NPR piece, also from Iowa, in which a republican woman, who has been listening to democrats talk, says:
"I see a real philosophical difference between me and many of those who've spoken here... I want to be in charge of my health care. I was paralyzed. I had polio. My parents paid for that. They CHOSE the fine doctors who performed three surgeries on me. I can walk. I don't want that dictated by the federal government, and I think what I hear is all this emotion, this tugging of the heartstrings. It's bigger than that. What's the federal government responsible for? .... And you know, I am single, I am self employed I make a great deal of money through my own hard work. I don't want to pay for someone else's child to eat breakfast at school anymore."
This is a woman who obviously came from a family that was able to come up with the money to pay to have that choice of fine doctors. I'm very happy for her that she had a choice, but many people who do not have access to such money, have no choice. She is assuming that everyone has a cushy middle-class income, or can get to that point if they just work harder, and if they don't have enough money it's their own damn fault. She is looking at the situation only from her own limited perspective, and is unable to comprehend circumstances far more dire than even hers were. There are, sadly, worse things than being paralyzed. Like-- I don't know-- being paralyzed, homeless, and hungry. She seems to have the belief that it's more important for her to be choosy about her medical care than it is for other people to have any medical care at all, or for them to eat.
This woman is certainly entitled to her opinion. But IF this woman, or anyone else holding this philosophy, claims to be a Christian, I have a big problem with that. Because for someone who supposedly listens to Jesus, this should be seen as blatantly wrong, to refuse to help your neighbor, or your neighbor's children, as the case may be.
First, the pastor being interviewed casually notes:
...pastors are saying 'after years of teaching that Mormonism is a cult how do we go out now and say to our congregations 'vote for a man who's a member of a cult but represents the values that we hold dear.''
So, there's no pretending anymore. Churches are telling people who to vote for. I guess I was just shocked at how freely he admitted it, and seems to see absolutely nothing ethically wrong with that. These tax-exempt organizations have become a political platform rather than some sort of, I don't know, place to worship God.
Later, NPR's Michele Norris asks the pastor what his congregates would do if, in the final election, they had to choose between two candidates they disagree with on just two issues.
Pastor: If we wound up at election time next November with a candidate who-- on both sides that was pro-choice, pro-civil union or same sex marriage, that would cause a lot of people to really have to dig down and decide 'do I vote for the lesser of two evils (as they may look at it) or do I just not vote at all?'
Norris: Is it possible that not just here in Iowa but in the-- adding to the general election, that Christian conservatives might stay at home, might vote down ticket but sit out the presidential contest?
Pastor: I think that is possible.
Norris: Really?
Pastor: I do think it's possible... because I have talked with people and I've asked, you know, if this scenario was presented what would you do and they said "well, I just wouldn't participate.'
I love the surprise in Norris' voice when she says 'really?'
I do not understand how people who claim to follow Jesus, who claim to believe that Jesus is God Incarnate, base their entire value system on two issues that JESUS NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT, and completely ignore what Jesus actually said: HELP THE POOR. He was pretty clear that if you ignore the poor, you're ignoring Jesus and he wants nothing to do with you, and if you feed and clothe the poor, you're caring for him and he'll be happy to see you.
There's also this NPR piece, also from Iowa, in which a republican woman, who has been listening to democrats talk, says:
"I see a real philosophical difference between me and many of those who've spoken here... I want to be in charge of my health care. I was paralyzed. I had polio. My parents paid for that. They CHOSE the fine doctors who performed three surgeries on me. I can walk. I don't want that dictated by the federal government, and I think what I hear is all this emotion, this tugging of the heartstrings. It's bigger than that. What's the federal government responsible for? .... And you know, I am single, I am self employed I make a great deal of money through my own hard work. I don't want to pay for someone else's child to eat breakfast at school anymore."
This is a woman who obviously came from a family that was able to come up with the money to pay to have that choice of fine doctors. I'm very happy for her that she had a choice, but many people who do not have access to such money, have no choice. She is assuming that everyone has a cushy middle-class income, or can get to that point if they just work harder, and if they don't have enough money it's their own damn fault. She is looking at the situation only from her own limited perspective, and is unable to comprehend circumstances far more dire than even hers were. There are, sadly, worse things than being paralyzed. Like-- I don't know-- being paralyzed, homeless, and hungry. She seems to have the belief that it's more important for her to be choosy about her medical care than it is for other people to have any medical care at all, or for them to eat.
This woman is certainly entitled to her opinion. But IF this woman, or anyone else holding this philosophy, claims to be a Christian, I have a big problem with that. Because for someone who supposedly listens to Jesus, this should be seen as blatantly wrong, to refuse to help your neighbor, or your neighbor's children, as the case may be.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
save the children-- from atheism!
A couple weeks back. I got an email from an acquaintance of mine whose religious views I do not share. The email was regarding an upcoming movie called The Golden Compass, which the boyfriend and I had recently seen a preview for but which otherwise I had never heard of.
Apparently this email has been making the rounds, because I know of at least two other people who have received it from different sources. The email claims (I have to paraphrase from memory because I deleted the message some time ago) that the movie, based on a series of books by Philip Pullman, contains a watered down version of the books' message, which the email claims is to convert children to atheism. It claims that the books are a rebuttal to C.S. Lewis' Narnia Chronicles, which are seen as Christian allegory. It also claims that They (Hollywood? The "Secular Left"? The Atheist's Guild? I don't know who) are releasing the movie at the beginning of December, banking that children will ask for the books for Christmas, wherein the poor impressionable kiddies will get the less watered-down, full-out argument in favor of atheism, which will cause them to be converted.
Honestly, I could care less about the movie, but I was interested in the claim that a series of children's fiction stories would be released in an attempt to evangelize atheism to children. Any fiction author who compromises a narrative for the sake of an agenda isn't going to do very well in the mainstream. (I hope. Maybe that's just me giving people too much credit again.) So I decided to check out what the author had to say. I found this interview, which is long, but interesting from both a spiritual standpoint and a writer's standpoint.
Pullman is quite critical of organized religion, but his priority in writing is to be true to the story.
That last part, an author's "desire to make sense of the world and [his/her] experience of it," is what has interested me about every book I've ever read, and every story I've ever written. It bothers me that there are people whose mindsets are so completely stuck, so wedged in the few things they believe and demand are true, that they can only think anyone who questions their beliefs has some kind of organized agenda against them. To me, that says more about the accuser than the accused.
Besides, if anyone's faith is so weak that reading one children's story is going to derail it, did they really have faith in anything to begin with?
Apparently this email has been making the rounds, because I know of at least two other people who have received it from different sources. The email claims (I have to paraphrase from memory because I deleted the message some time ago) that the movie, based on a series of books by Philip Pullman, contains a watered down version of the books' message, which the email claims is to convert children to atheism. It claims that the books are a rebuttal to C.S. Lewis' Narnia Chronicles, which are seen as Christian allegory. It also claims that They (Hollywood? The "Secular Left"? The Atheist's Guild? I don't know who) are releasing the movie at the beginning of December, banking that children will ask for the books for Christmas, wherein the poor impressionable kiddies will get the less watered-down, full-out argument in favor of atheism, which will cause them to be converted.
Honestly, I could care less about the movie, but I was interested in the claim that a series of children's fiction stories would be released in an attempt to evangelize atheism to children. Any fiction author who compromises a narrative for the sake of an agenda isn't going to do very well in the mainstream. (I hope. Maybe that's just me giving people too much credit again.) So I decided to check out what the author had to say. I found this interview, which is long, but interesting from both a spiritual standpoint and a writer's standpoint.
Pullman is quite critical of organized religion, but his priority in writing is to be true to the story.
I’m not making an argument, or preaching a sermon or setting out a political tract: I’m telling a story. And I accept that if I’d had more time to think about it, no doubt I would have put in a good priest here or there, just to show they’re not all horrible.
But there we are. If you’re writing a novel, especially a long story of thirteen hundred pages, there are always going to be things you wish you’d done differently. Artistic perfection is not achievable in anything much over the length of a sonnet.
...I am the servant of the story – the medium in a spiritualist sense, if you like – and it feels as if, unless I tell this story, I will be troubled and pestered and harried by it and worried and fretted until I do something about it.
The second reason I do it is that I enjoy the technical business of putting a story together in a way that excites and gives pleasure to an audience. The third reason is that I need to earn a living – and there is another range of reasons beyond that which might include at some point the desire to make sense of the world and my experience of it and give a sort of narrative account of why things are as they are.
Philip Pullman
http://www.thirdway.org.uk/past/showpage.asp?page=3949
That last part, an author's "desire to make sense of the world and [his/her] experience of it," is what has interested me about every book I've ever read, and every story I've ever written. It bothers me that there are people whose mindsets are so completely stuck, so wedged in the few things they believe and demand are true, that they can only think anyone who questions their beliefs has some kind of organized agenda against them. To me, that says more about the accuser than the accused.
Besides, if anyone's faith is so weak that reading one children's story is going to derail it, did they really have faith in anything to begin with?
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
the bible is not rated G
This evening I mentioned this article on the 9 most badass Bible verses. My favorite is II Kings 2: 23-24 where God sicks bears on 42 kids.
(And since sarcasm doesn't translate well in writing, I should clarify that I do not actually like the idea of God sicking bears on 42 kids. It bothers me that this stuff is in a book that so many people profess to follow.)
And since we're on the subject of the Bible, one of my favorite commentaries ever about the Bible is from perhaps my favorite program ever. It's this episode of the public radio show This American Life. I recommend the whole episode, but particularly the second half (if you're short on time, fast forward to 29 minutes into the program) with Julia Sweeney is fantastic.
And, just in case you need a pick me up after all that serious stuff, click here.
(And since sarcasm doesn't translate well in writing, I should clarify that I do not actually like the idea of God sicking bears on 42 kids. It bothers me that this stuff is in a book that so many people profess to follow.)
And since we're on the subject of the Bible, one of my favorite commentaries ever about the Bible is from perhaps my favorite program ever. It's this episode of the public radio show This American Life. I recommend the whole episode, but particularly the second half (if you're short on time, fast forward to 29 minutes into the program) with Julia Sweeney is fantastic.
And, just in case you need a pick me up after all that serious stuff, click here.
because you have so much spare time...
I found this documentary a while ago that's incredibly fascinating. It's a BBC production by Adam Curtis about American culture and how it has been shaped by marketing, and it gets into consumerism, individualism, politics, spiritual/religious movements, and history over the 20th century. There are four parts, and each part is an hour long, but it's so worth watching. It's had my brain turning for weeks.
NOTE: There is some disturbing war imagery, specifically from World War II, at the end of Part 1 and beginning of Part 2. Just be warned.
Updated Note: The link to part 1 has changed. This updated link is slightly lower quality, but it's still the right video.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
NOTE: There is some disturbing war imagery, specifically from World War II, at the end of Part 1 and beginning of Part 2. Just be warned.
Updated Note: The link to part 1 has changed. This updated link is slightly lower quality, but it's still the right video.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
self-indulging
After a discussion tonight at the bookstore, I realized there were a bunch of things that I wanted to be able to share with you guys. At first I thought I'd send an email with links, but then I realized it could become a very long email very quickly, so I decided to start a blog where I can post some of these links. This way I can also vent and rant about other thoughts I have regarding becoming an ethical consumer and making decisions in a society so full of tension, to lay down some of my continuing thoughts after our meetings and during breaks, mostly for my own benefit. But perhaps this way I can quit talking so much when we have our book study meetings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
