Archive for the 'My Position' Category

27 not so foolish Americans

Thanks for visiting my blog, Serving Bread. Here you'll read stories, insights, reflections and ramblings from a campus minister, father, husband and Jesus-follower. If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to the RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

I commend the 27 members of congress who voted for the passage of non-binding resolution HR 106 which would recognize the Armenian genocide as a genocide. I’ve mentioned before that the healing of a nation does not come because of government resolutions, and I think that the Armenian-American lobby has spent way too much time and money to force such a resolution. Our healing does not come with the enemy’s or a third entity’s recognition of the genocide. Our healing comes through forgiveness and reconciliation.

This resolution has a long way to go before it becomes the position of the US government. Even if it passes the House, I have serious doubt that the senate would pass it. I recognize that passage of this resolution could have severe consequences with Turkey, one of our most important allies. Turkey has already threatened “serious troubles” should this resolution go all the way.

One of the Turkish papers called the legislators “foolish” for passing this resolution. I find that they are courageous. It seems odd that we would propagate lies for the sake of alliances. Though this may help us in the short-term, it will only contribute to further corruptions in our world. The 27 (mostly) democrats (*I have tried to get a breakdown of who voted for this resolution but have been unsuccessful at finding that information*) may have other political ambitions—such as causing an intentional rift that would put pressure on the Bush Administration in it’s Iraq policies—but I’m glad for the stance they took for justice.

-----
If you enjoyed this post, be sure to grab the RSS feed. Also, please take a moment to submit this post through "Share This" above.
-----

Related Posts:

Reflections on War: Who is the enemy? (Part III)
Thoughts on the news
Reflections on War: Thoughts from a distance (Part I)
Water as a resource
Which politician will change your world?

Obama is wrong

I have been enjoying this political season and as I am impressed by the field of candidates, particularly those on the Democratic side. This is probably the best field of candidates that a party has produced in my recent memory.

I have been impressed by Barack Obama. He is a visionary leader, and exudes a kind of spirit that would compel me to put my support behind him. But I cannot disagree more with his stance on Iraq. Today he is quoted as saying that he wants a complete withdrawal by the end of 2008.

Iraq is a problem and I have mentioned many times before, there are no good solutions. The question really is, “What is the best of the available options?” Though I was against the war to begin with, the context is different. To have been against the war on the front end of the war is different than managing or addressing the consequences of war four years later.

We need anti-war candidates in the mix. And Obama brags that he never voted for the war (then again, he was not a senator then so it doesn’t really mean anything). What I’m looking for in a presidential candidate is someone who will address our current context. And I am not convinced that complete troop withdrawal is the best solution.

Admittedly, we have created a mess in Iraq. But the best person for the job is not necessarily the person who thought this would be a mess back then. The best person to handle the job of the presidency is the person who can navigate the mess we’re in.

-----
If you enjoyed this post, be sure to grab the RSS feed. Also, please take a moment to submit this post through "Share This" above.
-----

Related Posts:

Obama, Clinton quit and endorse McCain
(non)Controversies in the news
Thoughts on the Democratic YouTube/CNN Debate
Can conservatives endorse Obama?
142

Why I will not vote for John Edwards

I’m not a Democrat, nor will I be one before the primaries in February 2008. So, this is really a moot point, but a point I’d like to still make. There are three candidates in the Democratic party who (as of now) have a real shot at the nomination. And I certainly hope that voters in November 2008 are not left with Edwards as the choice on the Democrat side. If Democrats choose Edwards as their man, I will definitely not be voting for that ticket in November 2008. I am particularly troubled by two of Edwards’ positions:

  1. His platform to end poverty falls short. Edwards launched his campaign with a platform to end poverty. While such ambitions are commendable, the candidate’s credentials, experience and ideas fall far short of his desires. Edwards wealth does not disqualify him from having integrity in this issue, but his lifestyle and experiences in general do. Ending poverty requires more than just rhetoric and a change in certain domestic policies. If anything, the main element of ending poverty will require a heart shift in the nation (which politics is not poised to address). The haves must be invested in the campaign to care for the have-nots. The have-nots must be inspired to strive for better lives. Of course, there are systematic injustices and policy shifts that must happen as well. But those alone will not end poverty. A man who lives in the most expensive house in his county, who gets $400 haircuts, and has made his money through investments that dis-empower the poor is not my man to end poverty as we know it.
  2. Does he have anything to say about foreign policy? I’m not sure Edwards knows much about foreign policy. I think he can make things sound good (a must for a politician), but there is no content. Whereas Clinton and Biden talk about the things that need to happen to withdraw troops in Iraq, Edwards is content to jump on the bandwagon that we should withdraw troops from Iraq. While I appreciate his humility to acknowledge that voting for the war in 2002 was wrong, I am looking for a candidate to navigate our country through this mess. This is no Bobby Kennedy who inspired the nation and before his untimely death, spoke of ending the Vietnam war in terms of pulling out honorably. My fear is that if Edwards is elected, he would make more (not less) of a mess. My candidate for 2008 must have a plan to address the Iraq war (regardless of how he or she may have felt about the war in the first place).

Next time, I will talk about the one Republican candidate I will not be voting for.

-----
If you enjoyed this post, be sure to grab the RSS feed. Also, please take a moment to submit this post through "Share This" above.
-----

Related Posts:

Why I will not vote for Rudy Giuliani
Take this up with a toddler
Remember, Remember the Seventh of November
Thoughts on the Democratic YouTube/CNN Debate
Seven lessons on being a witness from John the Baptist in the Gospel of John

Nine reasons why you should stop drinking bottled water

If you are reading this outside of America, your tap water may not be safe to drink. But for all Americans reading this post, drink more tap water.

The bottled water industry is on a high. Last year, Americans drank 8.25 billion gallons of bottled water, which was a 9.5% increase from the year before. We (Americans) love our bottled water. We buy more of it than any other beverage but soda (and the soda manufacturers must be somewhat worried considering both Pepsi and Coca Cola have their own bottled water brands). I invite you to drink tap water and commit (with me) to never purchase another bottled water again. (I know, I sound extreme, but read on!)

First, tap water is safe. In most municipalities in the United States, tap water is safe. Very safe. A recent Environmental Protection Agency report concluded, “Most Americans received water from systems which reported no violations of health-based standards, and for which the states reported no significant violations of monitoring and reporting requirements. ” And in the cases that the water quality was sub-par, 90% of the violations served communities less than 3,300 people.

In fact, unlike public municipalities, bottled water companies do not have to release water-testing results. Your bottled water may not be as safe as the local tap.

Second, bottled water is a monetary expense we can live without. We pay more per volume for bottled water than we do for the gas in our car. Tap water is very cheap. Charles Fishman writes in “Fast Company”, “If you bought and drank a bottle of Evian (which would cost you $1.35), you could refill that bottle once a day for 10 years, 5 months, and 21 days with San Francisco tap water before that water would cost $1.35.” If you want to save money, drink tap.

Third, bottled water is an environmental hazard. Bottled water is contained in plastic. You need oil to produce that plastic bottle. You then need more oil to transport that bottle. Third, you need more oil to refrigerate that bottle so that you will purchase it. The need for oil means greenhouse gases (a primary cause of global warming).

Bryan Walsh reports in “Time Magazine” that “the Natural Resource Defense Council estimates that 4,000 tons of CO2 is generated each year—the equivalent of the emissions of 700 cars—by importing bottled water from Fiji, France and Italy, three of the biggest suppliers to the U.S.” You don’t need to buy a hybrid to reduce your environmental impact.

Fourth, bottled water tastes no better than tap water. We don’t need to belittle nor apologize for the taste of our tap water. Fishman writes,

The man who first brought bottled water to the United States famously failed an impromptu taste test involving his own product…. In blind taste tests, with waters at equal temperatures, presented in identical glasses, ordinary people can rarely distinguish between tap water, springwater, and luxury waters. At the height of Perrier’s popularity, Bruce Nevins (executive at Perrier) was asked on a live network radio show one morning to pick Perrier from a lineup of seven carbonated waters served in paper cups. It took him five tries.

Fifth, take a step against the image machine. Water tastes better in a bottle with the word Evian labeled on it the same way that coffee may taste better in a cup with Starbucks plastered on it. An indulgence here and there is not necessarily the issue. What I take issue with is when we buy into the image machine but use health or convenience as the excuse for our purchases or indulgences.

Sixth, don’t blame the marketers. The bottled water phenomena is not just marketing magic (though there were some pretty smart marketers that helped make this phenomena happen). Kim Jeffrey, a marketer with Perrier admits to Fishman, “A lot of people tell me, you guys have done some great marketing to get customers to pay for water. But we aren’t that smart. We had to have a hell of a lot of help from the consumer.” Jeffrey said that the marketing budget of the bottled water industry is only 15% of what the soda industry spends.

Seventh, fight the injustice. Consider this from Fishman, “Fiji Water (an American owned company) produces more than a million bottles a day, while more than half the people in Fiji do not have reliable drinking water.” Ouch. Fiji Water does reinvest in the Fijian economy, and at times has provided emergency water to villages hit by various health epidemics, but I doubt that Fiji Water is a positive value to the island.

Also, one in six people in the world do not have access to safe drinking water. In other words, even our tap water is a luxury, or perhaps a miracle. Living on bottled water is poor stewardship for Americans. And right stewardship of resources is an important (if not primary) method in promotion of justice.

Eighth, don’t be duped. Pepsi’s Aquafina and Coke’s Dasani have less of an environmental impact than Fiji, but they are duping you. Those brands get their water from public water sources. In other words, they take perfectly safe water and “purify” it in a neat bottle. They sell you what you get from your own tap.

Ninth, did I say that you can save the environment? Our recycling rate for polyethylene terephthalate plastic (which is commonly used to contain the water) is only 23%. We pitched 38 billion water bottles into the landfills last year.

I am committed to never buy another bottled water in the United States. I have pulled my reusable Nalgene bottle from the cupboards, and every day, I fill it with tap water (which I admit goes through some sort of filtration system that was already installed into my sink). I agree with Fishman that drinking bottled water is not necessarily a sin, but a choice in luxury. Like all other luxuries, we need to pay attention to how we enjoy them. And we need to ask the question of whether the expense is a valuable benefit.

Will you join with me in such a covenant?

Kudos to San Francisco for preventing city employees from using public funds to purchase bottled water, to New York for its public campaign to encourage its citizens to drink tap water, and to Salt Lake City for not providing bottled water at municipal events.

(HT: Charles Fishman, “Fast Company”, July/August 2007–Online Edition)
(HT: Bryan Walsh, “Time Magazine”, August 9, 2007)

-----
If you enjoyed this post, be sure to grab the RSS feed. Also, please take a moment to submit this post through "Share This" above.
-----

Related Posts:

Proposition 84
Water as a resource
Coffee IS good for you
Israel’s need for the Litani River
Leadership Insight 20: The best is yet to come