Oil price surge GOOD for drivers
Yesterday’s headline on the front page of the dead tree edition of the Grand Forks Herald read, “Oil price surge bad for drivers, good for N.D. revenue.” I appreciate the difficulty of writing pithy headlines (and sermon titles), but I think either writer Dave Roepke, or perhaps his editor, erred.
It may be the case that many drivers see high gas prices as “bad,” but I don’t. In fact, I welcome them.
Gas prices in the U.S. need to be higher to bring about a change in our behavior — driving less, building more eco-friendly neighborhoods, supporting mass transit, walking/riding bikes. In other countries, as I noted in this post written when I lived in Scotland, government gas taxes are much higher, enough to make people think twice before buying a large car and contributing to climate change.
Yes, some people — many people — suffer when gas prices are high. That’s why part of the national gas tax needs to go to farmers and those with low incomes. But as visionary Thomas Friedman argued this week, “If Not Now, When?”
In a labored but effective metaphor Friedman says of the turmoil in the Middle East which has caused gas prices in the middle west to rise:
America, you have built your house at the foot of a volcano. That volcano is now spewing lava from different cracks and is rumbling like it’s going to blow. Move your house!” In this case, “move your house” means “end your addiction to oil.
Every US President since Nixon has announced, “We are addicted to oil.” That’s every President, Democrat and Republican. The right public policy is to fight that addiction with a national gas tax.
So, to the headline-writer in the Herald yesterday I say, here’s one Grand Forks driver who begs to differ. Even as I abhor the violence in the Middle East, I welcome the pain at the pump. If only our government officials would raise the stakes some more.
Jon Stewart adds his satirical genius below:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| An Energy-Independent Future | ||||
|
||||
Congress goes to college
At least 32 members of Congress sleep in their congressional offices when they stay in Washington. Here’s a story on Utah’s up-and-comer Jason Chaffetz (who I follow on Twitter and disagree with about 90% of his tweets), re Jason’s cot and underwear washing plans
According to TIME though, a “watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington yesterday sent a letter to the Office of Congressional Ethics demanding an investigation into members sleeping in their offices.” Apparently there are questions as to whether sleeping in one’s office is “official use” of congressional quarters as opposed to personal use. It can also get awkward when members, wearing their pajamas, walk through the halls of congress on the way to the gym to shower.
I totally get that, on a congressional salary and flying back and forth to Washington, it may not make sense to pay Washington D.C. rates for a second home. The watchdog group is taking the wrong tact. Instead of suggesting members should refrain from sleeping in their offices, they should lobby that all members of the House and Senate may only sleep in their offices. Sounds too farfetched? OK, I’ll accept a congressional dorm or two. Here’s why it’s a splendid idea.
Living together in a dormitory settings strengthens friendships, encourages the exchange of ideas, and is the right solution for Washington’s partisanship. Why do so many churches hold leadership retreats or youth retreats? Because it helps bring people together and focus on a common goal.
The reality of congressional life these days is that it behooves representatives to be in their own districts as much as possible. They don’t want to be branded a “Washington insider.” They also need to raise money. Yes, that’s a shame, but that’s life. So, how about we maximize the time they are in session in Washington and make Congress like a longterm retreat. Design dorm rooms to be rather spartan, but make gorgeous common areas so congresspeople are incentivized to hang out together. I can see the possibilities already: congressional table tennis tournaments, group breakfasts, pranks on the first-year dorms, dorm-styled sweatshirts.
So, to the representatives that sleep in congressional offices, I say: thanks for serving your country…and why don’t you invite a friend for a sleepover?
Five Pillars of Christianity and Technology Taking over the World
[more coming soon, but for now a re-post from Feb 2009]
Ever consider how the movement of technology is eerily similar to the characteristics of Christianity? Never had I, until recently.
Then, in World Christianity class, our prof talked about someone who came up with the five pillars, or characteristics, of Christianity. These are handy to keep in mind for mission, and they’re good to remember because we often think of Christianity in our own neat and tidy way. These pillars are broader claims about CHRISTIANITY (big letters) with an emphasis on Christianity the world over.
First the five pillars, and then how they connect to technology…
Five Pillars/Characteristics of Christianity
- translability: there is no one language of Christianity. Latin was once used for theology, but it Christianity is inherently translatable
- uses people’s idiomatic expressions of the divine: related to the first, but considers, for instance, how we translate the name of God into different languages
- biographical: Christianity is both about biography of individuals — one’s self — and the biographies of communities of believers. Primarily, though, it is about the biography of Jesus — which we will expound on in testimonies, or sing in hymns.
- poly-centric: not one center of Christianity (but centers, perhaps)
- cross-culturally diffused: loses its cohesiveness in order to interact with the context where it has been received, in that new context gain gains a new cohesiveness
Ok, now think about how new technologies, Web 2.0, and the basic movement of information relates to each pillar of Christianity.
- Technologies are not in one language. In fact, the internet necessarily breaks down language barriers.
- Tech stuff isn’t about expressions of the divine, but it is all about idioms, idiomatic expressions of what people claim as important (even sacred?) in their lives — that’s the blogosphere in a nutshell
- Blogging, facebook, twitter is sooo biographical it’s almost too much for me. They’re all about biography and community, though.
- Clearly, there’s no one center of the net and that’s what gives it enormous power
- This last one is tricky, because technology doesn’t really lose its cohesiveness when met with a new environment, but it does become co-opted and gain a stronger cohesiveness when used well in the new setting.
If this were a paper, I’d now have to tie this up with a sweet conclusion. But it’s not. So I won’t. I do think, though, perhaps this means that Christianity — perhaps uniquely — may be spread through the use of technology. This seems like a big jump, perhaps, but I’ll take it for now. Or, on the other hand, I wonder if Christianity might be threatened by technology because they share so many characteristics? Is this why the church is so rapidly declining in Europe and the US, but growing in South America, Africa, and parts of Asia? Probably not.
Any ideas what to make of this?
image by cobrasoft
Perspective is Hard to Tweet
I’m a pretty big advocate of social media. At least, I often advocate people of faith use social media in positive ways because it’s a very powerful tool for community and connections. But, when I speak or write on social media, I always do so with a caveat: social media will not save us. Social media is fine and dandy, but it’s used by sinful folk who make mistakes. And, perhaps the most compelling aspects of social media are also its downfall. I’ll soon get to an example, but first, let me tell you about my breakfast — no, for real, not what I had for breakfast, but how.
Every Wednesday I’m in Hallock, I have breakfast at the local diner. (Only one choice in town, by the way, but it’s delicious.) Each week, I walk in and take my seat at the center table with the crew. The crew, or some conglomeration of it, is there every day save Sunday when the diner is closed. A busy day will bring 15 guys or so, but it gets down to 5 or 6 when the weather is -25 below or more and the snowbirds are gone. They’re all men, many retired farmers (some still farming), and I’d guess the average age minus me is probably 80 or so.
I look forward to these Wednesday mornings because the guys just talk. I mostly try to stay out of the way and let them at it. We cover — without really meaning to — sports, politics, local happenings, old hunting stories, family updates, condolences, how things used to be, and there’s always somebody lambasting the DNR. What I love about these breakfasts is the way the banter happens. Sometimes voices get raised, many times controversies get stirred, but it happens at a table where you can talk things through. There’s no hurry. They’ll all be there tomorrow, God willing. So they talk at things knowing they don’t have to figure it all out that morning. What’s the hurry anyway.
Now contrast this with my experience Saturday watching social media in the immediate wake of the tragic Tucson shooting. Friends I love and respect put up, on their Facebook walls, reactionary rhetoric accusing the Tea Party and Sarah Palin of guilt-by-association in the shooting before the Loughner’s name was even released. News outlets I respect incorrectly reported Giffords had died (though I have to say NPR’s apology was first-rate). Acrimonious accusatory quotes were being slung around Twitter faster than snot freezes on a Minnesota ski trail. On the whole, this was not social media at its best, but sad angry people lashing out against those with whom they deeply disagree.
Please hear me: I’m not saying Twitter and Facebook are bad. I love them both and use them extensively as fantastic tools. But I am saying, on Saturday at least, they were used as instruments to voice our lesser side.
Tim McGuire writes glowingly of the Arizona Republic’s coverage of the Tucson shooting. The Sunday edition came out less than 24 hours after the event, but even that short time allowed for more careful reflection and fact-checking.
The Caribou Grill breakfast crew is far from perfect. But the manner in which they meet — slowly, carefully, repeatedly, knowing each other well, with coffee — does imbue the gatherings with a sense of perspective I cherish, one that I sometimes miss on the lighting-fast platforms of social media. So when I go to breakfast Wednesday mornings I do something very rare for me: I leave my smartphone in the car.
image by Thomas Bush
Church Social Media Policies: An Academic Paper
Here it is, the final paper for a Communication course last semester on technology and media. Its title: When the Pastor’s Study Moves to Cyberspace: An Examination of Ecclesial Social Media Policies.
As I posted previously on this blog and at Christian Century blogs, there really aren’t many church social media policies out there as of the close of 2010. I’m willing to bet this will change because, unsolicited, I keep discussing questions with colleagues like: Should pastors have two Facebook accounts (one personal, one churchy)? How can our church have a safe online presence with youth? When a pastor leaves a congregation, should she “unfriend” members?
So here’s a paper that looks at some of those questions, both with my pastor lens and the lens of a communication scholar. You can get a preview of the paper below or to download see the information in the “update” section below. As of now, it’s not published elsewhere but I’m up for giving that a shot — feel free to send me comments or suggestions.
There’s no place for thanks in APA format, but I would like to thank blog commenters and others who have helped me think through such questions. Especially, the writing of Bruce Reyes-Chow, Carol Howard Merrit, Justin Wise, danah boyd, and Landon Whitsitt.
Update: If the Box.net version below doesn’t work for you, click here for a pdf: When the Pastor’s Study Moves to Cyberspace, alternatively it’s also on Google Docs.
“In the quite-likely event of an emergency, remain calm”
Bailouts, breached levees, and pregnant chads, oh my!
I’m not much of a retrospective guy, but David Von Drehle’s “2000: A Nation Divided” in TIME a few weeks back has kept me in the mood for some time now. And reading Dave Eggers’ fantastic book Zeitoun this week only drove the nail home.
Here’s what I’m thinking: if my young adulthood really has been formed by the 2000 election debacle, 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, the housing crisis, Lehman Brothers’ and AIG collapse, climate change unchecked, senseless war in Iraq, endless war in Afghanistan, SARS, a devastating tsunami, killer earthquakes, and the collapse of the publishing industry then, well, I’ve had a pretty screwed up post-high school experience. By all rights, I should despise institutions, be suspect of all money-driven media, and keep a gun and cash under my pillow each night. But, well, I don’t; I’m not. Am I too-cool-a-cucumber? A crazy cat? If not, what’s up?
First, surely the 24/7 news cycle desensitizes since there must always be a big story. I wrote about this a little in “Consuming Media Justly,” but I still don’t really have an answer. They say “familiarity breeds contempt” but maybe in problematic news “familiarity breeds nonchalance.”
Second, all institutions are suspect, so life goes on. The last decade was not a good one for civil liberties in the US, and yet I’m not outraged. Even companies whose products I love, like Apple, fail to impress me beyond the beauty of their current product line. As much as I wish things were different, I expect their computers and iThingies to be made in China under questionable circumstances. I know Apple will one day be history, as well as Facebook and CNN, and that’s ok. Trust and respect have become a transient commodity. Just as Facebook becomes popular we ask, “When will it go bust? What will be next?”
Third, the prevalence of injustice is nearly overwhelming. This isn’t totally a modern phenomenon, but these days we do seem inundated with the world’s problems. Each day, we know, thousands die of hunger and preventable diseases. Thousands more are tortured and imprisoned unjustly. In my own country, LGBTQ folks are still treated as second-class citizens and to call our immigration system “broken” could be the biggest understatement of the year.
Now, yes, certainly, many fantastically good things also mark the last decade or so, but they’re overshadowed by the troubling times. I don’t think that’s some media conspiracy, I just think we’ve had a bad run. But, even so, I’m somehow hopeful. I get annoyed at Facebook friends who only link to pessimistic and damning articles. Maybe it’s my Christian sensibilities, my trust in ultimate love beyond our weary world that helps me remain calm. Maybe it’s my American faith that hard work and steady minds will carry the day, that the American experiment is far from over, which keeps me optimistic. As Martin Luther King Jr. put it, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” Bend, oh 2011, bend.
image by Cancia Leirissa
Tiger Woods: PR Grace or Simply a Disgrace?
After working on rehabilitating his personal life, Tiger Woods last month started to rehab his public image too. And, for this skeptical un-fan at least, it’s a good start.
The first step in his off-season PR moves was a Newsweek article, “How I’ve Redefined Victory.” I’m not naive enough to think Tiger wrote much of it himself, but if he signed off on it, I’m well-pleased.
Sure, as Lilit Marcus argues, he could have been a bit more explicit in why exactly he’s redefining his notion of victory — sexual addiction, infidelity, colossal stupidity aren’t exactly admitted. But he does write,
This much is obvious now: my life was out of balance, and my priorities were out of order. I made terrible choices and repeated mistakes. I hurt the people whom I loved the most. And even beyond accepting the consequences and responsibility, there is the ongoing struggle to learn from my failings.
And if the essay is to be believed, learning he is. Actually, after reading the piece I’m more open-minded and even hopeful for Woods. “[My previous self-reliance] made me think that if I was successful in golf, then I was invincible. Now I know that, no matter how tough or strong we are, we all need to rely on others” he writes.
Maybe I’m a sucker. (And yes, I surely am for grace and forgiveness and a fresh start — call me Christian, or call me American since such things are essential to the fabric of both my faith and my country.) But I really feel for the guy, and I wish him the best. He’s right when he says he can never truly repair the damage he’s done. But that doesn’t mean he should stop trying, or he should stop playing golf, or he should stop loving his children.
In a predictably caustic rebuttal of the Wood PR blitz Tim Dahlberg scoffs
“The most miserable year [Woods] could ever imagine is about over. He should be shouting in joy that he’s survived, even if his golf career may be ruined forever.
Except this time it won’t work.
Instead he’s trying to sell himself to the world in the same calculating way he once sold Nike’s golf equipment.
Besides the fact that Dahlberg seems to enjoy wielding blanket unsupported statements to back his depressing thesis as much as Vikings fans, in recent weeks, like to rip on Brett Farve, Dahlberg’s view that Woods public image is irredeemable simply isn’t accurate. Heck, in a strange way, I think Woods’ image has even more cache now, because America loves a tragic hero.
To be honest, I wasn’t much of a Woods fan before the affair++, but now, for some reason and really for the first time, I’d like to see Woods do well. And regarding the PR efforts, I guess I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for now. I wish him luck as he begins to rebuild his image through Twitter and Facebook, TV appearances, and, well, maybe even winning some golf tournaments again.
image by Brandon Ledger
Connect Online
