Ramblings of Daniel Ross-Jones
Politics
It feels appropriate again
Mar 23rd
Of course, I don’t think this song ever went out of style. It just keeps summarizing the global society…
Sorry, YouTube won’t let me embed it here.
Churches “going green”
Mar 22nd
Over the recent past — specifically since “An Inconvenient Truth,” many churches have been forming rabid green teams charged with creating programs for environmental stewardship within the congregation, analyzing where energy savings can be optimized and to establish a culture of ecology within the parish. My work, my congregation and my seminary are no different in these attitudes, and overall it is a good work.
But doesn’t this all sound like the mid- to late-1980s all over again? Those who, like me, grew up with the commercials in between cartoons on Saturday morning calling us to “reduce, reuse, recycle,” or remember the commercial with the sad Native American who sheds a lone tear for the garbage strewn across his land, is it familiar? The boom, particularly of the late-1990s, displaced us from a focus on the environment.
The push for environmental sustainability has received greater emphasis in our churches and society following a number of big names throwing their endorsements behind such efforts. But why are so few people talking about the drawbacks of these efforts?
One of the biggest issues in America is the over-consumption of resources. Does it seem more than a little strange that green solutions generally involve consuming more?
- The paint on the walls of your home emit toxic fumes. Even though you painted just a year ago, make sure to go out and buy gallons more paint you don’t need, but this time get the low-emission, eco-friendly paint.
- The carpet in your home is only five years old. No matter — make sure to go out and buy new bamboo flooring that you don’t need because its better for the environment.
- Did you just replace a lightbulb with those ever-so-disgusting and old incandescent style? Get thee to the store stat and buy a pack of CFLs — overpacked for your convenience in enough plastic to cover a dining room table — and throw out that perfectly good bulb. Yes, its creating more waste now, but its so good later on.
- Stop driving that gas-guzzling Chevette and stop by your nearest Lexus dealer to browse their hybrid lineup. Its simply not acceptable to drive anything less — or consider mass transit, or carpooling, or consolidating trips, or…
Stewardship is the notion of paying close care to that which has been entrusted to you. We are called to be good stewards for our neighbor, our money, our family and yes, the environment. But it is simply not good stewardship to fall prey to hype. Change over to CFLs, but do it as you would normally do: by replacing what needs to be replaced. Are the scuff marks on your walls ready to be painted? By all means, consider the “green” paint. (I especially like Sherwin Williams’ offerings, but do as you will.) Does your vehicle, like mine, already get 30-35+ miles to the gallon? Consider other alternatives, like walking or biking to work, taking mass transit, setting up a carpool for your office or shopping trips with a nearby friend, rather than junking it in favor of the hybrid.
Going green is a lifestyle change, and like every other, consideration must be weighted to one’s situation. I think of many churches I work with — including my own:
- Many churches put their dishware and mugs in storage as the conveniences of using disposable overpowered the clean-up of stoneware following coffee hour. Pulling those “old relics” out for another tour of duty is a simple way to be more green — but rather than tossing the still-usable disposable cups and plates, at least get through the supply-on-hand in the meantime.
- For those churches who use an order of worship or liturgy that is printed in a pew resource (such as a hymnal or prayer book), why not just create “bookmarks” for the greeters to hand out each week, containing the service outline with page numbers for quick reference. Using less paper also means recycling less paper — expending less energy overall.
- Allow pledging members to give electronically, either through a third-party resource or have members set up routine bill payments if their bank offers free online bill pay. (Side note: if your bank still charges you for this service — change immediately, or demand they buy a new calendar showing the current year.) Some will switch, meaning less paper each week from checks and envelopes, but also usually indicating a greater percentage of fulfilled annual pledges. (Why yes, I am on the Board of Stewards at my congregation, why do you ask?)
There are certain times when there simply is not a better green alternative. For example, if your congregation does not have suitable dishwashing procedures or equipment and offers a weekly community meal, you may not be able to scrap disposable products in favor of dishware. Here’s where that stewardship thing comes in again: it is better stewardship for the environment to upgrade the kitchen dishwasher, but is it the right stewardship for your congregation community?
Oh, and what about the economic class division that is being created between the “greens” and the “nots”? Post for another time…
The video that prompted it all:
High-level military officers oppose lifting “Don’t Ask”
Feb 29th
According to this recent survey, 22% of high-ranking military officers oppose lifting Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell to boost troop levels. The results are being downplayed by those who characterize the officers as disconnected from the rank-and-file.
That, however, isn’t my concern. Frankly it doesn’t surprise me — nor do I think it proves anything.
What is frightening is that in the same survey, a whole 38% believe the solution is reinstating the federal draft. Out of the survey pool of 3,400, that means roughly 1,290 — more than one-third — believe conscription is preferred to allowing LGBT people to serve openly in the military.
Ugh.
Ch-ch-ch-changes
Jan 25th
The Wisconsin Legislature endorsed online, virtual academies in a draft measure that would provide state funding and keep their keyboards open in the fall, overruling an earlier circuit court decision to shutter the institutions. Teachers unions are crying foul, but for everyone else this is a win-win. The academies win in being allowed to stay open, the students win in being afforded more choice in their educational path, the public wins in being assured of unified standards just as any other public educational institution, and society gets to keep fighting over whether or not online schools are really schools.
OK so that last part is just like anything else.
The last episode of Frontline on PBS dealt with the rise in social media and social networking on the Internet and its affects on the high school class of 2007. I want to preface this with something: it was the first time I have ever watched an after-school special about the Internet that didn’t make me want to pull my hair out through the whole thing. The alarmist tone was muted, and while other generations may not understand the coming-of-age generation’s use of the Internet and think that it replaces important social values, it was extremely useful and well done. You can watch the full episode from PBS’ website, but do know it is 60 minutes.
Change is good. Change means we are human. (Change for the sake of change is annoying, but…) It means we are alive. Our instinct is to explore and discover, and part of that means that we need to evolve. Whether one dislikes the ongoing development of technology or loves it, ultimately it is irrelevant. The world won’t stop because you long for an earlier time — like when students learned in rows of desks, looked at a chalkboard and chanted off multiplication tables with their instructor.
Generations pass
Jan 12th
Last week, Penelope Trunk (of the Boston Globe) posted one of the most interesting blogs I’ve read in a while related to generational differences in today’s society and workplace. An excerpt:
The victories of Generation Y will not look like the Boston Tea Party or Kent State. They will look like this Iowa caucus: Gen Y, playing by the rules, and winning.
My friend Alicia had forwarded the posting on to me, and it was so strange that it came following a long conversation just a day earlier I had with a colleague about generational differences particularly in the area of racism and systemic change. In fact, it was that colleague who had the best summation of today’s change:
Many baby boomers have been ‘fighting’ for so long we don’t know how to stop and assess the ‘victories’ and ‘changes’ that have already occurred in our society.
I see it at work. I see it with my friends. I’ve seen it growing up — my mother’s best friend likes to poke fun at me for a remark I made when I still required others to wipe me: “Does it matter?”
Of course it matters, but that gets followed up by another question: “So what?” And there’s the root of the friction between the generations. The outgoing Boomers think the so what means a fight. The Gen Xers think the so what means proving themselves on the backs of others. And the incoming Millennials think the so what is working together with what is, imagining what can be from it, without spending a dizzying amount of time decrying what it isn’t. In the words of Trunk, GenY is seeking its mandate to “do things differently, within the established structures of power.”
Culture of fear
Oct 24th
The amount of fear in which mainstream America lives is utterly distressing to me. While not anything new or even profound, it reared its ugly head again to me today at work.
If you type your landline phone number into Google, it will return with your name, address — all the information that you have listed for yourself in the phone book. As with everything, it will also give you the opportunity to print out a map of the address. This is called a reverse lookup, and it has been available to people through the decades. One just used to have to call 411 to get it. (Of course, they’d have to create their own map, as well.)
Wanted to know where a person lived and had their last name? Just pull out the phone book.
This isn’t new. This isn’t privacy invasion. This isn’t a reason to sound the alarm. But just this morning I received a request to pull someone’s contact information off the synod Web site because they didn’t want that information on the Internet. So instead, now all a person has to do is call the synod office to receive it. Or look in our printed directories. But they can’t get it from our Web site, because heaven forbid someone with ill intentions searches for it and finds it there.
And what if they search in the phone book? Or call 411 for a reverse lookup?
Information is not inherently bad; nor is it inherently good. Its merely information. In the wrong hands, no matter where it is obtained, information can be used for bad reason.
Fear of information, I’ve found, is a generational difference. Those of us who were born post-1980 don’t have as much fear of what is available on the Internet. Makes sense given our upbringing with unfetted access to the Internet pre-psychos. (Or was it, really?) People born before then, though, the notion of Big Brother permeates the fear. Fueled by our governmental officials (who have ill intentions, I might add), this fear is manipulated in a way to create the illusion that privacy is possible — even plausible. But they’re the good folks. No need to fear the government, they want us to believe.
The enemy is not Google. The enemy is, as it has always been, sick and twisted people. They’re not leaving any time soon, but they seem to be calling the shots now. Grr-eat.
For The Bible Tells Me So
Oct 23rd
A couple weeks back — maybe even months now — both the Milwaukee LGBT Film Festival and the Milwaukee International Film Festival brought “For The Bible Tells Me So” here. My church made a group outing to both showings, but I wasn’t able to see it then. Last night while I was in Sheboygan at the synod’s fall conference, I made it to a showing at the Paradigm Coffeehouse.
Go. See the movie. Now. Why are you continuing to read this?
Watching the trailer, already fighting against spiritual warfare, I figured it would be a movie that left me saying, “Oh, gee. Situation normal. There are some crazies who can’t handle the thought of gay people, and they’re led by James Dobson and the gang.” I didn’t expect the movie to bring me to tears and leave me speechless for the better part of an evening. (And really, from me that’s the best review it can get.)
I found the trailer on YouTube and posted it below. Some showings coming up in Chicago and Madison; if anyone really wants to see this film but needs someone to go with them, I’m up for a road trip.
No money and being eco-friendly
Sep 28th
Motivated by a lack of quarters at the moment and a dwindling supply of clean clothing, I figured I should be able to wash my clothes in the bathtub of my apartment. Not knowing how to accomplish this, and having Google at my fingertips, I came across this blog post.
What a great idea — I figured there would be some environmental benefit by not using the dryer, but it’s such a simple, easy way to use less energy, and even get rid of some aggression by stomping on one’s clothes!
A racist, homophobic liar?
Jul 11th
This article is so bad, yet sooooo funny.
“You say on your form that you’re not a fan of homosexuals,” Nickerson said.
“That I’m a racist,” Ellis interrupted.
“I’m frequently found to be a liar, too. I can’t really help it,” Ellis added.
“I’m sorry?” Nickerson said.
“I said I’m frequently found to be a liar,” Ellis replied.
“So, are you lying to me now?” Nickerson asked.
“Well, I don’t know. I might be,” was the response.
Ellis then admitted he really didn’t want to serve on a jury.
“I have the distinct impression that you’re intentionally trying to avoid jury service,” Nickerson said.
“That’s true,” Ellis answered.
So being a racist, homophobic liar may not quite get you out of jury duty so much as it will get you charged with contempt.
Great idea, Massachusetts, but does it have to be so complicated?
Jun 30th
Universal health care. Anything less is unacceptable. Almost-universal health care is a great start, but Massachusetts’ plan may just very well be the most complicated, confusing bit of American public policy since Social Security.
Here’s a simple plan, based on my insurance policy. I think it’s pretty damn good insurance, and that it will work great for anyone who is employed and in my income tax bracket — 25% and higher. My employer contributes 16% of my salary for my insurance premium. I have single coverage and my insurance plan is managed by a major national organization (*cough*Blue Cross/Blue Shield*cough*), the same organization which manages many state governmental insurance plans across the country. I have a $300 out of pocket deductible per year, and one is hard pressed to find a health facility in America — even in certain parts of the world — that is not BCBS serviced.
So, group insurance is what lowers premiums and deductibles, right? OK, so let’s add just 10% to state taxes collected by employers per employee when their compensation would place them in the 25% income tax bracket. The new tax could not be passed on to the employee as to lower their net take-home pay. (I’m operating under the assumption that employees making $31,850 and more already have benefits packages including health care.) The employee, then, would be covered under the state health care plan. For full family coverage, the employer would contribute 13%.
As we go upward, employees in the 28% bracket ($64,250-$97,925) would have 14% and 18% contributions, in the 33% bracket ($97,925-$174,850) 20%/25% and in the top, 35% bracket would cap out at 27%/30%.
For employees in the 15% tax bracket ($7,825-$31,850 per year), employers would contribute 5% for single coverage, 7% for family. For those who are in the 10% tax bracket, or those who make up to $7,825 per year, the state would bear the burden of health insurance.
Employers would end up saving money, as they would not need to administer health benefits any longer. Employees would benefit by having large-scale, group insurance on an almost universal scale. States would then be able to reallocate resources to subsidize health insurance for the uninsured and deal less with underinsured. On top of it, insurance just got a whole lot easier.
