 |
|
|
|
|
March 30, 2003
10 THINGS I CAN SUPPORT
Here are 10 principles that I, as a US citizen, can and will do my best to support:
1. Attack poverty and world hunger as if my life depends on it.
2. Champion the rights of every child, woman & man.
3. End my country's obstructionism to the world's treaties.
4. Reduce dependence on oil / lead the world in renewable energy.
5. Close the book on the Cold War and ease the nuclear nightmare.
6. Renounce Star Wars and the militarization of space.
7. Make globalization work for, not against, working people.
8. Ensure equal treatment under law for all.
9. Get money out of politics.
10. Close the gap between rich and poor kids at home.
To learn more about these 10 specific principles, click here (by doing so you'll be taken the TrueMajority website... TrueMajority was founded by Ben Cohen, Co-founder of Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream... TrueMajorityís underlying philosophy is contained in the aforementioned 10 principles, which appear to reflect my own values of compassion, charity and justice ñ the same values I believe we should consider adhering to in order to build a safer, more secure home and world.
Posted by Mikal at March 30, 2003 10:11 PM
| TrackBack
Mikal, you know me and I'm not trying to be a jerk here...just calling it like I see it..."4. Reduce dependence on oil / lead the world in renewable energy." Don't you own an SUV? Yes, I'm Pot and I'm calling you black, Kettle. Then again, I'm working on buying that Stella...beep,beep!
Matt -- You're not being a jerk by asking that question. Rather, you -- like most everyone else -- may seem to think that reducing dependency on oil is exclusively a car thing. Far from it, my friend. And even if it was exclusively an automobile issue, you don't know the first thing about my personal transportation habits (i.e., how I drive, how far I drive, what I am doing to reduce my own dependency on auto-related oil products, etc.) Also, read the principle again... it states, "Reduce dependence on oil / lead the world in renewable energy." Don't loose sight of the second half of the principle... renewable energy.
Funny you should write this today. I was just contemplating my frustrations of owning a Jeep Cherokee and at the same time being disgusted at the amount of gas-guzzling Suburbans, Escalades, and Expeditions I see. I'm not sure if it can necessarily be blamed on us, the SUV owners. I've heard talk that the technology exists to make these huge SUV's more fuel efficient. The automobile industry, however, chooses to befriend the oil industry and does not actively pursue fuel effiency. We are left with no choices other than these cars they produce. I would LOVE to own a Toyota Prius, but my 90lb dog won't fit in it. :-( What's a girl to do??? He outgrew my little "left-over-from-college-years" Hyundai Accent.
Before I would even consider the ten points, I'm led to consider the source. Isn't Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream a bit of a luxury item (on I enjoy)? Granted, lots of good work and charitable contributions from the company (I've visited the Vermont HQ), but it seems that a commitment to personal comfort, as opposed to sacrifice, is also a staple in the lifestyle. The ability to eat Ben & Jerry's, drive the SUV (regardless of driving habits), and own the 90-pound dog are all part of that system. I'm typing on another luxury item now, and you're reading on yet another.
Mikal knows me, and knows I'm no stranger to fun. Yet lofty statements of principles lead me to ask: Do we know what sacrifice means? Do we want to?
In reply to D. Lee Grooms' comment: Lee, I have to say -- unless I just don't understand your point -- it seems pointless to potentially dismiss the 10 points on account of the source. (As an aside... Recently, as a result of deep introspection, I choose to adopt the philosophy that "All there is is what someone says and what you choose to believe about it." An extension to that would be, "All there is is what happens and what you choose to believe about it." Both approaches hinge on one's ability to choose.) In this case, I encourage you to choose to look at the message, not the source.
But if you insist on focusing in-part on the source, I believe you'd be hard-pressed to find a capitalist with Ben Cohen's track record of servant leadership. Legendary for his support of philanthropic causes while at the helm of Ben and Jerry's (by the way, he and Jerry sold the company years ago), Cohen's support of sensible values continue to be promoted today thru the work of True Majority and other organizations like it. Of course, at the end of the day, this whole issue does boil down to whose values and whose senses.
I submit that each and everyone of us participating in this conversations does know what sacrifice means, and that the degree to which one chooses to sacrifice is not as important (at this time) as is the commitment to making some sort of a sacrifice or change.
And yes, I do know D. Lee, and, as he says, he is no stranger to fun. Lee... I too have been to the Vermont HQ... way fun!
Mostly, Mikal, I just take issue with the inflated rhetoric. There aren't many sources who, to me, could get away with a statement like "Attack poverty and world hunger as if my life depended on it." I simply don't buy that Cohen, you, or I are really attacking it "as if our lives depended on it." Important? Sure. But let's be honest about the level of our commitment and "own our shit" a little more. It sounds stronger with the spin on the end, of course, but I just don't believe that's honest, and that's more than a little disrespectful and minimizing of those who truly suffer.
I really do think there must be correlation behind the validity of a message and its source. You buy into Cohen as a valid source for this message, I'd imagine, else I doubt you'd have cited him so prominently. In general, most of the principles are quite agreeable. Yet I'm no more compelled to sign on than I would be to a statement like "Crime is bad. Let's not have it anymore." As in anything political, I look for tight congruence between messenger and message. Maybe if Cohen scaled back the message a bit more realistically to his own standard of living?
Part of my issue may come from a difference in paradigm as well. A different belief on the nature of the problem leads to a different take on the solution. Richard Swenson sums up my perspective well in his book _Margin_: "Where do you think God would have us search for answers regarding drugs, crime, divorce, suicide, depression, teenage pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases, and litigation? In the material and cognitive realms, or in the relational ones? Our society tries in vain to remedy these problems using the popular notions of progressñ appropriating more money (that is, material/physical answers) and setting up more classes (that is, cognitive/educational answers). But insufficient funds and lack of education are not the problems. The problem is a lack of love."
Your mileage may vary. Sorry for being so long winded in your blog. :)
Mikal, thanks for posting this list. My favorite wording is that of #1 -- as if my life depended on it. That's my new motto, I think. To do everything as if my life depended on it. Esp. help others.
Post a Comment:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
