for the past couple of years i have tried to practice good environmental stewardship. i'll admit that a key in my new focus was seeing the film An Inconvenient Truth. i will not argue the science of the film or global climate change or anything to do with Al Gore. none of these ultimately brought about my change. what did it was remembering the intricate beauty of creation and my belief that the God i worship somehow brought about all that exists. it occurred to me that i can't love God and trash what God created and called good. so i set out to care for creation in as many ways as i could. i rode my bike more, i started using my own bags at kroger and my own water bottles everywhere (even when i was yelled at by an employee at taco bell - where i refuse to eat again), i have even invented my own water efficient way of washing dishes, which i'll disclose later. but one thing i couldn't turn green was my lead foot...until now.
one of my church members told me about a guy in "Reader's Digest" who won an mpg contest by getting 150 mpg. i was pretty floored, especially when i read that the car he used wasn't a hybrid. his secret: coasting. basically driving as slow as possible and trying never to use the gas, or the brake for that matter. so i've started trying it - it's really too soon to tell if i can do this. i'm so used to getting frustrated with people who even drive the speed limit. now i find myself well under it. i suppose this will be the true test of my dedication to creation. of course, i could just scrap the car and bike everywhere.
here are a few other tips the article offered: 1. keep your car empty of everything you can. excess weight only drags you down. 2. keep the tires inflated well and the car regularly maintained. 3. don't use the air conditioner or roll the windows down (really tough, the guy in the article wears an ice vest!).
and now, as promised, my amazing dish washing method. of course, if you can afford some fancy dishwasher that conserves energy and water, go for it. but i can't, so i do this. for starters, you have to clean your plate as much as possible when you eat. you should do this anyway - starving kids in africa. then, start off with just a little water and dish soap in the sink, just enough to wash a few things (plates). let them soak for a few minutes and then sponge them or whatever. THEN rinse them off with the water filling up the sink even more. in other words, don't rinse them in the other side with the water leaving and being wasted. i know you might be like "eww, but the water will be all gross." no, it won't. the dish should be totally free of crud when you rinse. any crud will be in that water anyway - and if you've eaten everything on your plate, it shouldn't be a problem. so continue rinsing so that the water level rises, and continue adding larger dishes and letting them soak for a few minutes. by the end, you'll have a full sink of water, but you'll have conserved a lot. tell your friends.
05 April 2008
26 March 2008
studio 60 on the sunset strip
a couple weeks ago i finally broke down and ordered the complete series of the show mentioned above. i had watched it when it was on a few years ago, and i was deeply saddened that it didn't get picked up. although i guess i shouldn't be that surprised. it offered a little more social commentary than most people care for i suppose.
i'm a pretty big aaron sorkin fan. i own the complete series of Sports Night and the first five seasons of The West Wing (i couldn't bear watching after the first few episodes of the fifth season). anyone who has seen the shows would have a hard time arguing that the substance of them is that distinct. and one could go so far as to say they are the same show in three different packages. so i find it a bit suspicious that Sports Night and Studio 60 made it two and one seasons, respectively, while The West Wing went seven and won quite a few emmys. i'm no conspiracy guy, but could it have something to do with the american flag being in The West Wing's opening credits? who's to say?
anyway, of the three The West Wing is probably my favorite, but then it had much more of a chance to earn that accolade. of the three, the first season of Studio 60 is by far the best. the first season of The West Wing is almost painful to recall - especially moira kelly. once she left it had the superior cast of the three, but only barely. all three casts were phenomenal compared to anything else on tv. matthew perry was great on West Wing and Studio 60. i hope he gets another shot at a role like that. only time will tell i suppose.
"suzanne, tarps over everything!"
i'm a pretty big aaron sorkin fan. i own the complete series of Sports Night and the first five seasons of The West Wing (i couldn't bear watching after the first few episodes of the fifth season). anyone who has seen the shows would have a hard time arguing that the substance of them is that distinct. and one could go so far as to say they are the same show in three different packages. so i find it a bit suspicious that Sports Night and Studio 60 made it two and one seasons, respectively, while The West Wing went seven and won quite a few emmys. i'm no conspiracy guy, but could it have something to do with the american flag being in The West Wing's opening credits? who's to say?
anyway, of the three The West Wing is probably my favorite, but then it had much more of a chance to earn that accolade. of the three, the first season of Studio 60 is by far the best. the first season of The West Wing is almost painful to recall - especially moira kelly. once she left it had the superior cast of the three, but only barely. all three casts were phenomenal compared to anything else on tv. matthew perry was great on West Wing and Studio 60. i hope he gets another shot at a role like that. only time will tell i suppose.
"suzanne, tarps over everything!"
17 March 2008
a bit of a crowbar separation, please
i thought maybe under bush people would begin to realize that a president's (or candidate's) religious beliefs really mean nothing regarding the way they will govern. bush is a self-avowed Christian (as are all candidates who hope to have a prayer of getting elected) and yet he has waged an unprovoked, unmitigated, endless war built entirely on lies. at the same time he has thwarted any effort to care for the environment and ignored any scientific evidence (or really any opinion) that has not supported his beliefs. i defy anyone to defend the claim (with a straight face) that he has done anything in his presidency that would even please Jesus Christ.
but i'm fine with this because politicians are not pastors and they shouldn't be. they should, of course, stop pretending to be devout Christians and admit they're playing to the crowd. but at the same time, the voters should actually explore history rather than listen to hack revisionist historians (often in the form of "pastors") and realize that the founders of the united states wanted a government devoid of religious favoritism and influence.
to those who want to belong to the Church - God is the ultimate authority. therefore, there is no allegiance to the state. to those who want to pledge allegiance to the state, let them serve the state, but don't expect them to worship God. no one can serve two gods.
which brings me to jeremiah wright. he is a pastor. his job is not to make flattering comments about the united states. his job is to serve God. people may certainly disagree with his sermons, but not in any political way because he is not a politician. and if people disagree with his sermons, they should speak with him, not members of his church. they don't write his sermons.
perhaps obama should answer questions about his relationship to wright - but not the kind the media are offering. maybe obama should be asked why a political campaign has a chaplain or spiritual advisors. even more basic, he should be asked how he plans to command a military that may be called upon to kill while he serves a God that forbids killing. but of course these questions draw attention to the problems of mixing Church and state, and everybody knows those two are separate. right?
but i'm fine with this because politicians are not pastors and they shouldn't be. they should, of course, stop pretending to be devout Christians and admit they're playing to the crowd. but at the same time, the voters should actually explore history rather than listen to hack revisionist historians (often in the form of "pastors") and realize that the founders of the united states wanted a government devoid of religious favoritism and influence.
to those who want to belong to the Church - God is the ultimate authority. therefore, there is no allegiance to the state. to those who want to pledge allegiance to the state, let them serve the state, but don't expect them to worship God. no one can serve two gods.
which brings me to jeremiah wright. he is a pastor. his job is not to make flattering comments about the united states. his job is to serve God. people may certainly disagree with his sermons, but not in any political way because he is not a politician. and if people disagree with his sermons, they should speak with him, not members of his church. they don't write his sermons.
perhaps obama should answer questions about his relationship to wright - but not the kind the media are offering. maybe obama should be asked why a political campaign has a chaplain or spiritual advisors. even more basic, he should be asked how he plans to command a military that may be called upon to kill while he serves a God that forbids killing. but of course these questions draw attention to the problems of mixing Church and state, and everybody knows those two are separate. right?
18 February 2008
stop the fame for the infamous
before michael moore had the "audacity" to question and challenge bush's motives for waging war on iraq, thus incurring severe wrath from...well not above, but somewhere (moore, not bush), he was fairly widely celebrated for Bowling for Columbine. in it, he examines the violent culture of america - especially america's youth - and the myriad factors that might contribute to disasters like those experienced at columbine high, virginia tech, and now northern illinois university.
particularly piercing in his work is the difference between our media and that in other countries. most, if not all, mainstream media religiously follows the maxim "if it bleeds, it leads." but i'm starting to wonder if the immense attention and fame (or perhaps infamy) heaped on the perpetrators of these acts isn't becoming a massive incentive. we can blame the increase on the severity and regularity of these acts on many factors, but certainly it seems that the more coverage these acts have received, the more they have occurred.
most of the people who commit these acts are suicidal. but rather than simply kill themselves, they want to make as big a bang as possible. so they kill many others. and then, we give them just what they wanted to begin with: massive attention. in essence, we grant their final wish - and we honor them with attention far above their poor, innocent victims.
criminals, especially of this caliber, should not be made celebrities. we should completely deny them this awful fame. don't mention their names or anything about them. don't show any photos of them posing with weapons of death. withhold from them all glory, and declare once and for all that those who commit these atrocities will receive no attention. i find it deplorable that during sporting events cameras will cut away from people running on baseball fields or across tennis courts because "we don't want to encourage that kind of behavior" - but apparently we shouldn't question whether or not we are encouraging mass murder. just once it would be encouraging to see ANY news outlet that wanted to try and be part of the solution rather than contributing to the problem.
think i'm exaggerating about this? i'll bet you know the names of the murderers at niu, va tech, and columbine - or could at least describe them. now try describing or naming any of their victims.
particularly piercing in his work is the difference between our media and that in other countries. most, if not all, mainstream media religiously follows the maxim "if it bleeds, it leads." but i'm starting to wonder if the immense attention and fame (or perhaps infamy) heaped on the perpetrators of these acts isn't becoming a massive incentive. we can blame the increase on the severity and regularity of these acts on many factors, but certainly it seems that the more coverage these acts have received, the more they have occurred.
most of the people who commit these acts are suicidal. but rather than simply kill themselves, they want to make as big a bang as possible. so they kill many others. and then, we give them just what they wanted to begin with: massive attention. in essence, we grant their final wish - and we honor them with attention far above their poor, innocent victims.
criminals, especially of this caliber, should not be made celebrities. we should completely deny them this awful fame. don't mention their names or anything about them. don't show any photos of them posing with weapons of death. withhold from them all glory, and declare once and for all that those who commit these atrocities will receive no attention. i find it deplorable that during sporting events cameras will cut away from people running on baseball fields or across tennis courts because "we don't want to encourage that kind of behavior" - but apparently we shouldn't question whether or not we are encouraging mass murder. just once it would be encouraging to see ANY news outlet that wanted to try and be part of the solution rather than contributing to the problem.
think i'm exaggerating about this? i'll bet you know the names of the murderers at niu, va tech, and columbine - or could at least describe them. now try describing or naming any of their victims.
13 February 2008
nothin
well it's been a few weeks since i posted. so you might be wondering what have i been doing? well, nothin. i don't really have a good reason for not writing - just nothing much has come to me lately. i don't really have that much to write about now, but i feel like i need to - and emily told me to. so i guess here are a couple things that have been consuming my time.
planet earth - i finally got a library card to the auburn public library (on a side note - boo to the university library. you may be big and have a cool name that is almost "dragon" but i'm not paying for a library card. you're a public university, and my taxes keep you alive. you should be saying "thank you" not "gimme more of your money." also, you started as a methodist school and i'm methodist clergy - so where's the love?) and i checked out the first two dvds of this series. it truly is unbelievable. i deeply love nature and find so much of it fascinating. this is the greatest presentation of nature documentary i've ever seen. it's entrancing. it really has brought out a deeper appreciation for animals. i mean, i've always loved animals and been amazed by them. but until lately i don't think i've respected them as much as i should. what they have to go through just to survive is incredible. when i want food, i go to kroger or any number of other food vendors, and i get exactly what i want. when animals want food, they have to take it somehow, and in many cases they have to endure ridiculous hardships to come by it. seeing some of the hunt scenes in planet earth truly humbles me. and it saddens me so much more that we are making the existence of so many animals that much harder - it not impossible all together. if we cause the extinction of polar bears, i'm pretty much done with the human race.
unChristian - at the aub pub lib (as i call it) i also got a little book i'd seen a few times before called unChristian. the full title is unChristian: What a new generation really thinks about Christianity...and why it matters. the book features the extensive work of the barna group which has research perceptions of Christians and the Church, and in this case most of the data concerns 16-29 year olds who are considered "outsiders" to the Christian faith (atheists, agnostics, or adherents to another religion or no religion). well, the findings are staggering but not surprsing, enlightening as well as troubling. i'm not finished with the book yet, but i've been a bit surprised by how much it has resonated with me. i find myself sharing many of the frustrations that the "outsiders" express. overall, i certainly agree with the feeling expressed by many that "outsiders" are seen by many within the church as targets. they only really matter insofar as they could be another check on our church logs, and that's generally how we treat them. we may try once or twice to convert them or something, but a meaningful, long-lasting relationship where they are deeply honored and equal partners in the discussion - no, we aren't really that interested in that. the book doesn't pull any punches, and i like it's honesty and willingness to turn the microscope in on itself. the people who did this research and produced the book are deeply committed Christians willing to say "we are a large part of the problem." furthermore, they offer real suggestions for helping with the problem. i can only hope they will find ears willing to listen in our churches. if not, they may be describing the beginning of the end of Christianity as we know it...which come to think of it, may not be a bad thing at all.
planet earth - i finally got a library card to the auburn public library (on a side note - boo to the university library. you may be big and have a cool name that is almost "dragon" but i'm not paying for a library card. you're a public university, and my taxes keep you alive. you should be saying "thank you" not "gimme more of your money." also, you started as a methodist school and i'm methodist clergy - so where's the love?) and i checked out the first two dvds of this series. it truly is unbelievable. i deeply love nature and find so much of it fascinating. this is the greatest presentation of nature documentary i've ever seen. it's entrancing. it really has brought out a deeper appreciation for animals. i mean, i've always loved animals and been amazed by them. but until lately i don't think i've respected them as much as i should. what they have to go through just to survive is incredible. when i want food, i go to kroger or any number of other food vendors, and i get exactly what i want. when animals want food, they have to take it somehow, and in many cases they have to endure ridiculous hardships to come by it. seeing some of the hunt scenes in planet earth truly humbles me. and it saddens me so much more that we are making the existence of so many animals that much harder - it not impossible all together. if we cause the extinction of polar bears, i'm pretty much done with the human race.
unChristian - at the aub pub lib (as i call it) i also got a little book i'd seen a few times before called unChristian. the full title is unChristian: What a new generation really thinks about Christianity...and why it matters. the book features the extensive work of the barna group which has research perceptions of Christians and the Church, and in this case most of the data concerns 16-29 year olds who are considered "outsiders" to the Christian faith (atheists, agnostics, or adherents to another religion or no religion). well, the findings are staggering but not surprsing, enlightening as well as troubling. i'm not finished with the book yet, but i've been a bit surprised by how much it has resonated with me. i find myself sharing many of the frustrations that the "outsiders" express. overall, i certainly agree with the feeling expressed by many that "outsiders" are seen by many within the church as targets. they only really matter insofar as they could be another check on our church logs, and that's generally how we treat them. we may try once or twice to convert them or something, but a meaningful, long-lasting relationship where they are deeply honored and equal partners in the discussion - no, we aren't really that interested in that. the book doesn't pull any punches, and i like it's honesty and willingness to turn the microscope in on itself. the people who did this research and produced the book are deeply committed Christians willing to say "we are a large part of the problem." furthermore, they offer real suggestions for helping with the problem. i can only hope they will find ears willing to listen in our churches. if not, they may be describing the beginning of the end of Christianity as we know it...which come to think of it, may not be a bad thing at all.
24 January 2008
thoughts on heath ledger and other things
heath ledger's death caught me by total shock, and i don't really know why. that's to say it's not really like i knew him or anything about him. i know i felt sadness for several reasons, but i think i felt an eeriness because i was so captivated by the scenes of his portrayal of the joker in the forthcoming batman movie - so much so that i wrote about it in the post before last. then to hear suggestions that the role might have contributed to his death - even if it just caused him to lose sleep and seek sleeping pills - i felt guilt at celebrating a performance that might have led to such a tragedy.
in the media coverage of all this, it is encouraging to see even the slightest restraint in pronouncing his death. i suppose the restraint is mostly an unavoidable consequence of having to wait for toxicology reports. after that comes out, all bets are off. but at least there are efforts have the facts - as much as we can have - before pronouncing judgment. i suppose i'm particularly attuned to this because i just finished reading a book about the duke lacrosse case. since i was there for the whole thing, i promised myself it'd be several years before i read any of the books about it. but i heard this one (Until Proven Innocent) being read on NPR and decided to go ahead.
of course the main feature of the book exposes the rush to judge the lacrosse team regardless of the facts and the general refusal to admit this fault once the charges had been totally disproven. during the events i tried to remain as objective as possible. i certainly didn't clamor for their heads (or other body parts) as the extremists did - possibly because i'm a white male, and i don't feel either trait makes me inherently evil or criminal. but i guess having the respect for due process that i have also cautions me about rushing to judgment. i can't say i didn't feel that deep down something probably happened at that party - but i look back and realize that's generally all that was presented to me by the media, even at ground zero (with the usual exception of The Chronicle - duke's student newspaper, which i read often, but not daily). for a long time it wasn't really a question of whether or not a sexual assault occurred; it was what happened and who did it? but the principle characters responsible for shaping the story did not stop at the first scene and honestly account for the facts.
regardless of what the facts end up concluding (or suggesting - as total conclusion may never be possible) about ledger's death, it is a tragedy. i think that's really all we can say and perhaps all we should.
in the media coverage of all this, it is encouraging to see even the slightest restraint in pronouncing his death. i suppose the restraint is mostly an unavoidable consequence of having to wait for toxicology reports. after that comes out, all bets are off. but at least there are efforts have the facts - as much as we can have - before pronouncing judgment. i suppose i'm particularly attuned to this because i just finished reading a book about the duke lacrosse case. since i was there for the whole thing, i promised myself it'd be several years before i read any of the books about it. but i heard this one (Until Proven Innocent) being read on NPR and decided to go ahead.
of course the main feature of the book exposes the rush to judge the lacrosse team regardless of the facts and the general refusal to admit this fault once the charges had been totally disproven. during the events i tried to remain as objective as possible. i certainly didn't clamor for their heads (or other body parts) as the extremists did - possibly because i'm a white male, and i don't feel either trait makes me inherently evil or criminal. but i guess having the respect for due process that i have also cautions me about rushing to judgment. i can't say i didn't feel that deep down something probably happened at that party - but i look back and realize that's generally all that was presented to me by the media, even at ground zero (with the usual exception of The Chronicle - duke's student newspaper, which i read often, but not daily). for a long time it wasn't really a question of whether or not a sexual assault occurred; it was what happened and who did it? but the principle characters responsible for shaping the story did not stop at the first scene and honestly account for the facts.
regardless of what the facts end up concluding (or suggesting - as total conclusion may never be possible) about ledger's death, it is a tragedy. i think that's really all we can say and perhaps all we should.
30 December 2007
new poll!
well i thought about doing a poll that had nothing to do with new year's, since as a Christian i celebrated the new year with the first Sunday of advent (who's with me?!). but when i picked up my newest edition of Newsweek and remembered some of these, i had to share them with you. if you haven't seen any of them, check em out before you vote. i'm not gonna vote yet so i won't guide the results or anything, but there's really only one correct answer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)