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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
