The BP oil spill in the gulf coast is a tremendous disaster, both environmentally and economically for the people and communities depending on the coast.
I've listened in horror to the news reports on NPR, with attempt after attempt failing to stop the flow of oil. The statements that it might not get plugged until they can dig a relief well - a process that won't be completed until August.
It's easy, now that there's been a gaping wound in the crust of the earth for over 40 days now, to look back in hindsight and say that things haven't been handled properly.
While this may be true, and thinking about how to handle things properly is a worthwhile pursuit, I think there are some serious dangers to this kind of thinking, as well. I think we, as a nation, tend to be monday morning quarterbacks. It's easy for us to look back and say, "Well, this is a huge disaster, the President should have done more to stop it. It doesn't seem like he's doing very much."
Well, there are two points: 1) You, a lay person in the middle of farm country, U.S.A., really have no idea what the President is doing.
2) You, with your expert in farm equipment maintenance, would be hard pressed to know the first step to handling a huge crisis like this. So, I'd like to see you do better.
When that oil platform first exploded, my thought was horror at the loss of life. 11 men died. That's tragic. I didn't immediately think, "There's no way they'll be able to cap this spill! Let's start building 100 miles of sand barriers to protect our coast line!" No one knew the scale that this would become. So, yeah, maybe Obama hasn't handled this like he could have, but I think it's ridiculous to expect a man, just because he's the President, to never make a mistake when he's thrown such a monumental curve ball.
So, to all these polls showing that a majority of the country thinks that Obama's not doing enough to stop the oil spill, I would question where you formed that belief. Is it because he hasn't been impassioned enough in his speaking? Or because BP hasn't found a way to fix their problem yet? Or because Obama hasn't kicked them aside from their area of expertise in order to tinker with it? Or because he didn't know 40 days ago that he'd need to build barrier islands?
I'm just afraid that it's all politicized spin.
That said, I think we should look more carefully about the future of offshore drilling, and be more prepared for disasters like this in the future.
I think we need to look carefully at the financial relationship between big energy businesses and the government. A coworker shared with me his belief that the government will never harshly discipline an oil business, or enact laws that don't favor big oil, because politicians get so much money from oil businesses for their campaigns. Is this a bribe, when it really comes down to it? And is this in the best interest of the people?
I think it'll be interesting to see what, if any, money BP gives back to the communities and fishermen that are affected by their follies.
But, I think we should judge Obama more on his policies than on this misguided assumption that he should have fixed this disaster by now.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Capitalism (or, Cogs in the Corporate Machine)
Why do we work so hard?
Science fiction is often the precursor for things to come. In Star Trek, we got our first glimpse of cell phones and doors that open when someone gets close to them. That's fairly common. Science fiction writers envision cool new stuff, young scientists figure out how to make it happen.
I read a science fiction book awhile back, I believe it was called Childhood's End (but it could be a different book). What struck me is that the author described how with the advancement of machines and automation, the world's goods were produced largely without mankind's assistance.
Working was made obsolete.
Essentially, the author described the society where everyone had what they needed, and were free to pursue other passions. They could create art and music, they could travel, they could study history and philosophy. People continued to work, but only on things they were passionate about. They didn't work simply to keep this big global machine spinning. They weren't just a cog. They were people.
Sadly, this science fiction dream has not been realized. Doctor Pastor Craig Finnestad once said in a sermon that the washing machine, the every day device that washes our clothes for us, was supposed to make our lives easier for us. It was supposed to give us more time for other interests. Instead, what it did was drastically increase our standards of cleanliness. We are now hyper critical about getting rid of every spot on our clothes -- God forbid we wear the same jeans twice without washing them. It's ridiculous to the point of O.C.D. Why?
There were times where 12 hour days and 6 or 7 day work weeks was the norm. Now our society has progressed to the 40 hour work week. Why not take it down to 35? Or 20?
We're trained to believe that we need to work so that we can BUY BUY BUY more STUFF STUFF STUFF. So, instead of living our lives, we work our lives away pursuing an ever increasing standard of materialism. Greed governs our very existence. They don't paint it that way. It's described as the American Dream. Supplying for your family. Work is noble, work is good. Laziness is disgusting. Buy buy buy buy buy, screams every commercial, every radio program, every store shop window, every billboard, every newspaper, every magazine....
And economists tell us that if consumer confidence isn't restored - if we don't start spending - we'll lose our jobs. So, if you don't BUY BUY BUY, you might not be able to EAT EAT EAT.
What if we could make a different kind of society? I'm not an Anthropologist (I'm hoping Heather will chime in here), but what were tribes like before the birth of the capitalist monster? They weren't all concerned with getting more stuff. They worked enough to eat and live, and then they enjoyed their lives.
It's so hard to envision such a society. We've been told all our lives that capitalism and democracy are good and holy, and we need to spread these ideals to the rest of the world. I think that's a whisper from the breath of big business, because they don't want their little cogs to stop turning.
Science fiction is often the precursor for things to come. In Star Trek, we got our first glimpse of cell phones and doors that open when someone gets close to them. That's fairly common. Science fiction writers envision cool new stuff, young scientists figure out how to make it happen.
I read a science fiction book awhile back, I believe it was called Childhood's End (but it could be a different book). What struck me is that the author described how with the advancement of machines and automation, the world's goods were produced largely without mankind's assistance.
Working was made obsolete.
Essentially, the author described the society where everyone had what they needed, and were free to pursue other passions. They could create art and music, they could travel, they could study history and philosophy. People continued to work, but only on things they were passionate about. They didn't work simply to keep this big global machine spinning. They weren't just a cog. They were people.
Sadly, this science fiction dream has not been realized. Doctor Pastor Craig Finnestad once said in a sermon that the washing machine, the every day device that washes our clothes for us, was supposed to make our lives easier for us. It was supposed to give us more time for other interests. Instead, what it did was drastically increase our standards of cleanliness. We are now hyper critical about getting rid of every spot on our clothes -- God forbid we wear the same jeans twice without washing them. It's ridiculous to the point of O.C.D. Why?
There were times where 12 hour days and 6 or 7 day work weeks was the norm. Now our society has progressed to the 40 hour work week. Why not take it down to 35? Or 20?
We're trained to believe that we need to work so that we can BUY BUY BUY more STUFF STUFF STUFF. So, instead of living our lives, we work our lives away pursuing an ever increasing standard of materialism. Greed governs our very existence. They don't paint it that way. It's described as the American Dream. Supplying for your family. Work is noble, work is good. Laziness is disgusting. Buy buy buy buy buy, screams every commercial, every radio program, every store shop window, every billboard, every newspaper, every magazine....
And economists tell us that if consumer confidence isn't restored - if we don't start spending - we'll lose our jobs. So, if you don't BUY BUY BUY, you might not be able to EAT EAT EAT.
What if we could make a different kind of society? I'm not an Anthropologist (I'm hoping Heather will chime in here), but what were tribes like before the birth of the capitalist monster? They weren't all concerned with getting more stuff. They worked enough to eat and live, and then they enjoyed their lives.
It's so hard to envision such a society. We've been told all our lives that capitalism and democracy are good and holy, and we need to spread these ideals to the rest of the world. I think that's a whisper from the breath of big business, because they don't want their little cogs to stop turning.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
The hope center - how we help people
In church this morning, I just heard the founder of the Hope Center talk about helping poor kids in North Omaha become employable and have more hope for their future. It sounded like a great program. They tutored kids to get caught up in school. They had art and athletic programs. He gave statistics about how the kids in their program had much higher graduation rates, they got steady jobs. They had futures and a sense of community, where before their only safety was in gang life.
But my question is, why are Christians so likely to be conservative and vote against social programs - like this one - when the government does it, but support it when the church does it? Could it be that they don't actually want to help people, so much as propagate their beliefs and feel good about their generosity?
If we wanted to help lift people out of poverty, we would want such social programs to be available to all children - without religious strings attached. If we wanted such a society, we would vote for government officials who would help shape such a society. Instead, Christians are notoriously conservative. And increasingly I've been finding the fundamental views of conservatism to be "personal responsibility." (Which roughly translates to, "if you're poor, then you're on your own." or "You're not getting any of my money." or "I WORK for my money (even though I had rich white parents who put me through college and I have a cushy desk job that pays 6 figures, while you work twice as many hours a week at crappy hourly jobs, trying to save enough money to go to a community college), so I don't give out handouts.")
{Since we all know that poverty is a hole that's nearly impossible to dig yourself out of. You can't go to college unless you can afford to pay the college bills, and pay the rent while you're studying - which you can't do unless you have a high-paying job - which you can't get unless you have a college degree - which you can't get unless.... Ad infinitum}
But then when a program like this comes into their church, they all feel bad for the poor little black children in North Omaha, without a dad to come see their football games. And then they want to help - but only when it comes by way of a preacher not a politician, and only when they don't actually have to get involved, and only when it doesn't raise their taxes or make them uncomfortable, and only when they can feel really really good about themselves for putting five dollars in the offering bucket. Is that really what Jesus would have wanted?
I think we need to focus on actually building a better society, not doing temporary fixes that either a) make us feel good about ourselves or b) propagate our beliefs, with the goal of making everybody just like us. (The Ann Coulter effect; in a perfect world, everyone would be a white, middle class Christian conservative American.)
I think that the Hope Center is a great program. I think that their tutoring and arts programs, their focus on employability - these things are definitely needed. Sometimes I'm just uncertain of how we get there, and how pure our motives are.
Really, I'm always amazed at the disconnect between Christian "selfless generosity for those in need" and "the servant's heart," and Christian "you're on your own" conservative politics. If Christians really had a servant's heart, would that not show through in their voting record?
But my question is, why are Christians so likely to be conservative and vote against social programs - like this one - when the government does it, but support it when the church does it? Could it be that they don't actually want to help people, so much as propagate their beliefs and feel good about their generosity?
If we wanted to help lift people out of poverty, we would want such social programs to be available to all children - without religious strings attached. If we wanted such a society, we would vote for government officials who would help shape such a society. Instead, Christians are notoriously conservative. And increasingly I've been finding the fundamental views of conservatism to be "personal responsibility." (Which roughly translates to, "if you're poor, then you're on your own." or "You're not getting any of my money." or "I WORK for my money (even though I had rich white parents who put me through college and I have a cushy desk job that pays 6 figures, while you work twice as many hours a week at crappy hourly jobs, trying to save enough money to go to a community college), so I don't give out handouts.")
{Since we all know that poverty is a hole that's nearly impossible to dig yourself out of. You can't go to college unless you can afford to pay the college bills, and pay the rent while you're studying - which you can't do unless you have a high-paying job - which you can't get unless you have a college degree - which you can't get unless.... Ad infinitum}
But then when a program like this comes into their church, they all feel bad for the poor little black children in North Omaha, without a dad to come see their football games. And then they want to help - but only when it comes by way of a preacher not a politician, and only when they don't actually have to get involved, and only when it doesn't raise their taxes or make them uncomfortable, and only when they can feel really really good about themselves for putting five dollars in the offering bucket. Is that really what Jesus would have wanted?
I think we need to focus on actually building a better society, not doing temporary fixes that either a) make us feel good about ourselves or b) propagate our beliefs, with the goal of making everybody just like us. (The Ann Coulter effect; in a perfect world, everyone would be a white, middle class Christian conservative American.)
I think that the Hope Center is a great program. I think that their tutoring and arts programs, their focus on employability - these things are definitely needed. Sometimes I'm just uncertain of how we get there, and how pure our motives are.
Really, I'm always amazed at the disconnect between Christian "selfless generosity for those in need" and "the servant's heart," and Christian "you're on your own" conservative politics. If Christians really had a servant's heart, would that not show through in their voting record?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)