On the TV news the other day, I saw Laurie David and Sheryl Crow doing their "green" tour, talking about how we all have to consume less. Their featured advice: Use only one square of toilet paper per visit to the toilet. Well, maybe two or three squares for the longer visits.
Now, I consider myself something of a saver in using many items. But I have a hard time accepting that their recommendations are practical. Maybe if they have really big squares and quadruple-ply paper...
I don't know whether to blame TV news for stressing a sound bite that was intended as humor and didn't at all reflect the true substance of their message -- or to blame the women for becoming too extreme in an attempt to make their point. In either case, it's sort of sad that people were given an excuse to laugh at and/or ignore a far larger, more-important message they were trying to convey.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
More on Imus
I hate to give the man the ink -- the bytes? -- but I feel compelled to comment further on Don Imus after reading the Newsweek cover stories on his fall from grace. It is both painful and laughable to see people scurrying to excuse or explain their association with the man after he suddenly has drawn national fire.
All because the Rutgers women's basketball team acted as the little boy at the parade pointing out, "The Emperor has no clothes." Journalists, politicians, authors, and other versions of powers-that-be kissed up to Imus over the years because he gave them airtime and an audience. They tried to pretend that their appearance on his show was not the same as condoning crude, racist, sexist, offensive comments that he and his colleagues have made as a matter of course. Wasn't it?
Full disclosure here: I never listened to Don Imus's show. I never wanted to. By reputation, by other news reports, I already knew that he used personal attacks and ridicule. I have no desire to listen to that sort of thing. Don't get me wrong: I like good satire and even confrontational questions to interviewees. But, for my taste, they need to be based on fact and substance, on a person's actions and pronouncements -- not on that individual as a human being. Name-calling and stereotyping do nothing to further our understanding of important issues. They only inflame, and give a false sense of power or righteousness to the person doing the name-calling.
I suppose all human beings -- or at least many of us -- are attracted to power like moths to a flame. Finding ourselves in the "in" group, the elite circle of dealmakers important enough to be invited to a national talk show, makes us feel important. It would be hard to pass up that stamp of "making it," the exposure to a national audience. Maybe it's too hard to say, "No, I won't go, because it would be the same as condoning the offensive remarks Imus and his crew have made against any number of individuals and groups over the years."
And that's too bad, because more of us need to take a stand against such language as being unacceptable to us -- whether it happens on talk radio, television, or gangster rap. Then again, when name-calling is common even from our own President's mouth -- evil-doers and Axis of Evil -- it's hard to set a tone of civility.
My question on this matter of calling Imus to accountability for his words: What took so long?
All because the Rutgers women's basketball team acted as the little boy at the parade pointing out, "The Emperor has no clothes." Journalists, politicians, authors, and other versions of powers-that-be kissed up to Imus over the years because he gave them airtime and an audience. They tried to pretend that their appearance on his show was not the same as condoning crude, racist, sexist, offensive comments that he and his colleagues have made as a matter of course. Wasn't it?
Full disclosure here: I never listened to Don Imus's show. I never wanted to. By reputation, by other news reports, I already knew that he used personal attacks and ridicule. I have no desire to listen to that sort of thing. Don't get me wrong: I like good satire and even confrontational questions to interviewees. But, for my taste, they need to be based on fact and substance, on a person's actions and pronouncements -- not on that individual as a human being. Name-calling and stereotyping do nothing to further our understanding of important issues. They only inflame, and give a false sense of power or righteousness to the person doing the name-calling.
I suppose all human beings -- or at least many of us -- are attracted to power like moths to a flame. Finding ourselves in the "in" group, the elite circle of dealmakers important enough to be invited to a national talk show, makes us feel important. It would be hard to pass up that stamp of "making it," the exposure to a national audience. Maybe it's too hard to say, "No, I won't go, because it would be the same as condoning the offensive remarks Imus and his crew have made against any number of individuals and groups over the years."
And that's too bad, because more of us need to take a stand against such language as being unacceptable to us -- whether it happens on talk radio, television, or gangster rap. Then again, when name-calling is common even from our own President's mouth -- evil-doers and Axis of Evil -- it's hard to set a tone of civility.
My question on this matter of calling Imus to accountability for his words: What took so long?
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Chocolate and Sex
Having just savored my two squares of dark, dark chocolate for the day, I was not at all surprised to run across the news "Chocolate is more exciting than kissing:" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/16/nchoc16.xml
What else can you have every day, yet never find it disappointing? It doesn't snore, channel-surf or ignore you. It's always there, waiting, for when you're ready. But I suppose it can leave a mess on the sheets.
What else can you have every day, yet never find it disappointing? It doesn't snore, channel-surf or ignore you. It's always there, waiting, for when you're ready. But I suppose it can leave a mess on the sheets.
Monday, April 16, 2007
Explaining Violence
In the wake of today's shootings on a Virginia college campus, I hear news stories focusing on security, and what can be done to increase it on campuses. But I don't know if that's the most important question. Maybe I say that because I cringe at the thought of college campuses turning into walled-off oases where everyone has to go through a security check to get in. It's bad enough when metal detectors and bag checks already are in place at some schools, courthouses and more. Not to mention having to remove your shoes before going to your airport gate.
The question that isn't asked enough is: Why are we such a violent society? Why are guns so easily available? Why are people so likely to use them?
Finding an answer would require an uncomfortable look at our own history, our current policies (from invading Iraq to shrugging off domestic violence), and the tone of our popular culture, from songs to video games to music that glorify violence. Someone cross you? "Make my day," buddy. In Santa Fe a few months ago, two women were killed when a motorist, whom they allegedly cut in front of on the interstate, shot them.
And maybe we'd even be forced to look at that sacred cow: gun control. That may be a case of closing the barn door after the horse got loose, though. There are so many guns in circulation, I think it would be impossible to call them all back.
I don't want us to work so hard on protecting ourselves and hiding from violence. I want us to work on making it an unacceptable option, so frowned on by society, that only the most crazed or hardened psychopaths would resort to it.
The question that isn't asked enough is: Why are we such a violent society? Why are guns so easily available? Why are people so likely to use them?
Finding an answer would require an uncomfortable look at our own history, our current policies (from invading Iraq to shrugging off domestic violence), and the tone of our popular culture, from songs to video games to music that glorify violence. Someone cross you? "Make my day," buddy. In Santa Fe a few months ago, two women were killed when a motorist, whom they allegedly cut in front of on the interstate, shot them.
And maybe we'd even be forced to look at that sacred cow: gun control. That may be a case of closing the barn door after the horse got loose, though. There are so many guns in circulation, I think it would be impossible to call them all back.
I don't want us to work so hard on protecting ourselves and hiding from violence. I want us to work on making it an unacceptable option, so frowned on by society, that only the most crazed or hardened psychopaths would resort to it.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Democracy is Messy
When I was a work-study student at Northwestern University's Center for Urban Affairs, I frequently came across references to the name of Saul Alinsky, an organizer in Chicago's poor and minority communities. Almost invariably, the name came up in an admiring context, with Alinsky held up as a role model for a way to make a positive difference in the world.
I was surprised, then, when I came across a Washington Post story (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/24/AR2007032401152.html) that portrayed Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as avoiding discussion of their past links with Alinsky or his organizing tactics. I would see such a link as evidence of their commitment to relate to common people. But then I saw the story quoted a Republican pollster, Frank Luntz, as comparing admiration of Alinsky to admiring "some of the people from Germany in the 1930s and '40s."
I'll assume he wasn't referring to Germans opposed to Nazism during that period. So he's comparing Alinsky -- who probably would have been organizing Jews and others to oppose Nazism if he were there at that time -- to a political structure that repressed and annihilated the minorities of its society, and often imprisoned or killed anyone who expressed dissent. How about comparing him to communism, where a government forces everyone to march in lockstep to the tune of the party in power?
No, Alinsky brought together people, who didn't have the money or power to be heard on their own, to make their needs and desires known to an indifferent political elite and government bureaucrats. He held the radical idea that people know what is needed in their own neighborhoods, and that, together, they can work to improve conditions. He believed in letting their voices be heard.
Sounds like democracy to me.
I was surprised, then, when I came across a Washington Post story (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/24/AR2007032401152.html) that portrayed Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as avoiding discussion of their past links with Alinsky or his organizing tactics. I would see such a link as evidence of their commitment to relate to common people. But then I saw the story quoted a Republican pollster, Frank Luntz, as comparing admiration of Alinsky to admiring "some of the people from Germany in the 1930s and '40s."
I'll assume he wasn't referring to Germans opposed to Nazism during that period. So he's comparing Alinsky -- who probably would have been organizing Jews and others to oppose Nazism if he were there at that time -- to a political structure that repressed and annihilated the minorities of its society, and often imprisoned or killed anyone who expressed dissent. How about comparing him to communism, where a government forces everyone to march in lockstep to the tune of the party in power?
No, Alinsky brought together people, who didn't have the money or power to be heard on their own, to make their needs and desires known to an indifferent political elite and government bureaucrats. He held the radical idea that people know what is needed in their own neighborhoods, and that, together, they can work to improve conditions. He believed in letting their voices be heard.
Sounds like democracy to me.
Fuzzy-Headed Ho
Regarding Don Imus and his comment about the Rutgers basketball team: If anyone in this tacky tale is a "ho," I would submit it would be Mr. Imus, who prostitutes his sensitivity, good sense and taste -- if, indeed, he ever had any -- to create an on-air persona he thinks he can "sell" to his listeners.
Monday, April 9, 2007
Corporate Food
Stories about tainted pet food should get us all thinking about how we all can be affected by the centralization and globalization of food production. Many people are commenting about how surprised they were to learn that one pet food company manufactured food for many different brands. And they all could have been affected by what people think was tainted wheat gluten imported from China.
It's not a whole lot different with human processed food. It made me think about how easy it would be for a well-placed terrorist to poison human food products.
But it doesn't even take a terrorist. It used to be that, when people got sick from food, it was an isolated event, like a family reunion or a company picnic. Food was bought and prepared from local or regional sources.
Now, spinach at a farm in California can be exposed to E. coli from a neighboring cattle farm, mixed together with bunches of other leaves, and sent to grocery stores all around America. One cow with E. coli can be mixed together with meat from hundreds of other cows, ground together, and show up in hamburger in dozens of states. It gives new urgency to the advice to "eat local." It doesn't mean you won't get sick, but it does lessen the number of sources from which your food comes. And the more different sources of your food, the increasing risk that at least one of them would have the potential of contamination.
It's not a whole lot different with human processed food. It made me think about how easy it would be for a well-placed terrorist to poison human food products.
But it doesn't even take a terrorist. It used to be that, when people got sick from food, it was an isolated event, like a family reunion or a company picnic. Food was bought and prepared from local or regional sources.
Now, spinach at a farm in California can be exposed to E. coli from a neighboring cattle farm, mixed together with bunches of other leaves, and sent to grocery stores all around America. One cow with E. coli can be mixed together with meat from hundreds of other cows, ground together, and show up in hamburger in dozens of states. It gives new urgency to the advice to "eat local." It doesn't mean you won't get sick, but it does lessen the number of sources from which your food comes. And the more different sources of your food, the increasing risk that at least one of them would have the potential of contamination.
Just Say No
A story in today's New Mexican notes that six states are refusing to participate in the federally-funded program for abstinence-only education. They point out that some programs offer inaccurate information to young people and that abstinence education does not play a big role in preventing unwanted pregnancies and STDs.
Some experts within New Mexico's Department of Health have been arguing for years that the state should reject that money, saying the programs hamper the public health goals of preventing STDs and teen pregnancies. It will be interesting to see if there's any change of heart on this issue with the Gov's run for president. Will it help him to take the money and whatever appeal it could give him to conservatives? Or to hop on the bandwagon with other states and look like he's rejecting the current administration's policies, thereby offering a "change." After all, don't all candidates for public office promise change? And how often do we get it?
Some experts within New Mexico's Department of Health have been arguing for years that the state should reject that money, saying the programs hamper the public health goals of preventing STDs and teen pregnancies. It will be interesting to see if there's any change of heart on this issue with the Gov's run for president. Will it help him to take the money and whatever appeal it could give him to conservatives? Or to hop on the bandwagon with other states and look like he's rejecting the current administration's policies, thereby offering a "change." After all, don't all candidates for public office promise change? And how often do we get it?
Saturday, April 7, 2007
Apologies
I noticed that North Carolina is the most recent state to apologize for slavery. It seems there's a trend of apologizing for past wrongs -- even though the actual people making the apologies weren't even around at the time of the horror and had no hand in it.
There's nothing wrong with reminding people of past tragedies and giving notice that such things are not acceptable. But doesn't it seem that the true recognition of regret would be to avoid repeating those horrors in the present? Instead of apologizing for genocide, intervene to prevent it in Africa. Instead of apologizing for turning away Jews fleeing the Nazis, take in refugees fleeing persecution today. (What happened to that boatload of Haitians that landed in Florida a while back?) Instead of apologizing for slavery, hunt down and prosecute people who are holding foreign nationals in sweatshops, households and prostitution rings as virtual slaves today.
It's easy to wring your hands over past misdeeds. It's harder to act to prevent or eliminate them today. So much easier to turn our heads and let future generations make new apologies.
There's nothing wrong with reminding people of past tragedies and giving notice that such things are not acceptable. But doesn't it seem that the true recognition of regret would be to avoid repeating those horrors in the present? Instead of apologizing for genocide, intervene to prevent it in Africa. Instead of apologizing for turning away Jews fleeing the Nazis, take in refugees fleeing persecution today. (What happened to that boatload of Haitians that landed in Florida a while back?) Instead of apologizing for slavery, hunt down and prosecute people who are holding foreign nationals in sweatshops, households and prostitution rings as virtual slaves today.
It's easy to wring your hands over past misdeeds. It's harder to act to prevent or eliminate them today. So much easier to turn our heads and let future generations make new apologies.
Caught!
Down in Albuquerque, drivers have been complaining that cameras posted at intersections have been catching them running red lights. For some reason, they think this is massively unfair. Apparently they think if there's not an actual law enforcement officer on site -- visible enough to give them warning to obey the law -- to catch them, they should be able to get away with breaking the law.
In response to those complaints, warnings are going to be posted before those intersections letting motorists know that cameras are watching them. I suppose the message is that people need to be informed when they can get away with violating traffic laws, and when they might be caught.
There's a simple solution, you know: Just stop at red lights. All the time. Everywhere.
In response to those complaints, warnings are going to be posted before those intersections letting motorists know that cameras are watching them. I suppose the message is that people need to be informed when they can get away with violating traffic laws, and when they might be caught.
There's a simple solution, you know: Just stop at red lights. All the time. Everywhere.
Monday, April 2, 2007
Making Assumptions
Pundits have been putting their spin (http://http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/01/AR2007040101142.html) on the decision of John Edwards to stay in the presidential race after his wife was diagnosed with an incurable recurrence of cancer. I remember my reaction when I first read the announcement. I felt some dismay that ambition was overriding very deep family, life-and-death concerns. Then I heard people talking about their courage in not letting cancer interfere with their lives, and thought, well, I guess that is admirable, when you look at it that way.
Then I noticed that this is another one of those instances when the same set of facts can be layered with a host of different interpretations, judgments, and "spin," giving completely different meanings to those facts. But all those "meanings" are just opinions.
One of those lessons I've learned by this point in my life is that I can't see inside another person's heart. I learned that simply through experiencing instances in which people have said things to me that included assumptions about what I was thinking or feeling -- assumptions that weren't at all in line with my actual thoughts and feelings. Surprised and dismayed, I then would scramble to deny the assumptions, and earnestly explain what I really was thinking, all the while resenting the sense that s/he had mistaken notions about where I was coming from. And wondering, even as I tried to explain, if s/he didn't believe me and hung on to the original assumption.
No, not one of us can know why a person does something. The best we can do is ask, and listen to the answer. We can choose to believe or not believe what they tell us. But, ultimately, we can only decide what we will believe. We can't know.
Then I noticed that this is another one of those instances when the same set of facts can be layered with a host of different interpretations, judgments, and "spin," giving completely different meanings to those facts. But all those "meanings" are just opinions.
One of those lessons I've learned by this point in my life is that I can't see inside another person's heart. I learned that simply through experiencing instances in which people have said things to me that included assumptions about what I was thinking or feeling -- assumptions that weren't at all in line with my actual thoughts and feelings. Surprised and dismayed, I then would scramble to deny the assumptions, and earnestly explain what I really was thinking, all the while resenting the sense that s/he had mistaken notions about where I was coming from. And wondering, even as I tried to explain, if s/he didn't believe me and hung on to the original assumption.
No, not one of us can know why a person does something. The best we can do is ask, and listen to the answer. We can choose to believe or not believe what they tell us. But, ultimately, we can only decide what we will believe. We can't know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)