This is a really great segment to listen to. As someone who has spent some time thinking about socially conscious business models (and sometimes even got paid to think about it!) I thought a lot of the points he makes are spot on. It's a commitment (the segment is an hour long) but if you have the time, take a listen.
Speaking of Faith: The Business of Doing Good (Interview with Jonathan Greenblatt)
Monday, September 8, 2008
Friday, September 5, 2008
Friday Night is Pizza Night at My House
Tonight was a modified deep-dish margherita pizza, minus the dish. Smoked mozzarella (from Vermont, bought at the co-op), chives grown on my front stoop, tomatoes from my garden, olive oil, basil...pure summer delight.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Too Much Stuff Quandary
A long time ago I wrote about how hard it is for me to get rid of things that were given to me as gifts...no matter how unnecessary they are. This is why, up until recently, I had clothes that were several years old in my closet with the tags still on. I have decided over the summer that, having taken the past year-ish to set up my household to my liking, I now need to tackle the equally large job of paring down my stuff to only what I need and want.
I have never before been able to feel successful at this challenge.
I have a lot of stuff. I also have a whole house. Part of my project right now was to decide what was appropriate for me. I looked into intense efforts like the "100 Thing Challenge." Although I have a lot of respect and awe for the people who do it, I realized that it did not make sense for me. For one thing, I'm a grad student. I have easily over a hundred books alone and am adding around 30 per semester. This is not optional. When I moved, I pared my book collection down to a third of what it once was. I'm proud of that, but I'm not ready to go further than that.
So I thought maybe I would exempt books. But what about DVDs? CDs? They are supposed to count in the challenge. And then I thought about furniture. I will admit that perhaps I have one too many chairs, but otherwise my furniture fits in my house. It's not over-crowded. It's comfortable and it is welcoming for visitors. It is conducive to my studies. So is there a problem.
I like to drink my wine out of a wine glass, not a juice glass or a tumbler. Might edge me into a snobby zone, but does it make me a worse person? Not really. I like my nice knives. I sometimes need to cook a can of soup in a small pot and a full dinner of pasta in a big one.
Which led me to think of the larger picture of why we have this pressure to get rid of clutter.
I have a strong belief in the power of simplicity. The simplest things make me the happiest. A pitch perfect New England day. Sun sparkling on snow. Taking a boat out on a lake that is as still as glass. A good dinner. A movie that makes me feel. Reading a paperbook book out in the sun. My cat chasing a piece of tape.
But does less always equal simpler? Yes and no. For those of us who are still mobile...who still are moving around, trying out jobs, cities, and lifestyles, less is more. Moving stinks. But what if I am semi-settled? There's no knowing what the future holds (and yes, I do have big, if temporary, moving plans in the works) but for now I have no desire to move. If you're not moving, the answer is not perhaps that simple.
So then what? Having an uncluttered home is less stressful. Creates less work. Is more aesthetically pleasing. Is less wasteful. Ok. I agree I have too much stuff under that definition. To me a clutter-free existence means not having piles of things to trip over. It means that everything you have, you have because you want it there. You don't have to use it every day, but if you pick it up you can definitely say, I want this because... Nostalgia, up to a point, is ok. When I open my music box and it plays a tinkling little tune I can smile and remember things only in my head. The sailboat in my living room reminds me of good friends, sailing (of course), and places I would one day like to go. I feel good when I am surrounded by things I love and memories of better (?) times. 100 items or less would mean giving all of these things up. It's not for me.
I believe that the stress of being told that I need to have a clutter-free existence negates the stress-free feeling of having a clutter-free space. Does that make sense? I'm serious, it stresses me out just to think about holding a yard sale or going through the boxes (left by my grandmother) in the basement. Am I a bad person?
So I have decided that for me, for now, the clutter that I will worry about is the build up. The plaque of life. It's the stuff that accumulates in boxes, in corners, in closets, and in the basement. Stuff I could not care less about but that will get out of control and make my place look messy if I get lazy about it. If I don't add anything to my basement of boxes, that is something!
So here are my new rules for de-cluttering my life. I am hoping that it is a low-impact solution that will produce some really good long-term results; truly reducing what I have to only what makes me happy:
1) Every time I go to the dump I have to bring something more than normal trash. I go to the dump every two weeks or sometimes more. Now when I go I bring something other than my normal accumulation of trash and recycling. This has included:
3) What what I'm buying. If I don't need it, love it, or have a space for it, it doesn't come home. This is especially of true of things like art (no more wall space, no more art).
4) [In direct opposition to what I said above] This semester I am trying out only buying books once I have already read, or partially read the library's copy. It only works because I'm no longer competing with others for the same library copies. Hopefully I won't have another semester like the last one where summer came and some of my books were still wrapped in plastic. Similarly, if I bought a book for a class which is no longer of interest or use to me in my studies, it gets sold or donated. Period.
5) I got rid of my old desk system. Now mail is either saved in my files or thrown out the day it arrives. I have stopped saving things like gas bill stubs and bank statements. The amount of paper in this house has already been greatly reduced.
Does anyone have any other ideas that fit my system (no all-day purges, no challenges based on arbitrary numbers, no judgments made about what I choose to keep)? Baby steps to less stuff. Baby steps to less stuff. BABY STEPS.
I have never before been able to feel successful at this challenge.
I have a lot of stuff. I also have a whole house. Part of my project right now was to decide what was appropriate for me. I looked into intense efforts like the "100 Thing Challenge." Although I have a lot of respect and awe for the people who do it, I realized that it did not make sense for me. For one thing, I'm a grad student. I have easily over a hundred books alone and am adding around 30 per semester. This is not optional. When I moved, I pared my book collection down to a third of what it once was. I'm proud of that, but I'm not ready to go further than that.
So I thought maybe I would exempt books. But what about DVDs? CDs? They are supposed to count in the challenge. And then I thought about furniture. I will admit that perhaps I have one too many chairs, but otherwise my furniture fits in my house. It's not over-crowded. It's comfortable and it is welcoming for visitors. It is conducive to my studies. So is there a problem.
I like to drink my wine out of a wine glass, not a juice glass or a tumbler. Might edge me into a snobby zone, but does it make me a worse person? Not really. I like my nice knives. I sometimes need to cook a can of soup in a small pot and a full dinner of pasta in a big one.
Which led me to think of the larger picture of why we have this pressure to get rid of clutter.
I have a strong belief in the power of simplicity. The simplest things make me the happiest. A pitch perfect New England day. Sun sparkling on snow. Taking a boat out on a lake that is as still as glass. A good dinner. A movie that makes me feel. Reading a paperbook book out in the sun. My cat chasing a piece of tape.
But does less always equal simpler? Yes and no. For those of us who are still mobile...who still are moving around, trying out jobs, cities, and lifestyles, less is more. Moving stinks. But what if I am semi-settled? There's no knowing what the future holds (and yes, I do have big, if temporary, moving plans in the works) but for now I have no desire to move. If you're not moving, the answer is not perhaps that simple.
So then what? Having an uncluttered home is less stressful. Creates less work. Is more aesthetically pleasing. Is less wasteful. Ok. I agree I have too much stuff under that definition. To me a clutter-free existence means not having piles of things to trip over. It means that everything you have, you have because you want it there. You don't have to use it every day, but if you pick it up you can definitely say, I want this because... Nostalgia, up to a point, is ok. When I open my music box and it plays a tinkling little tune I can smile and remember things only in my head. The sailboat in my living room reminds me of good friends, sailing (of course), and places I would one day like to go. I feel good when I am surrounded by things I love and memories of better (?) times. 100 items or less would mean giving all of these things up. It's not for me.
I believe that the stress of being told that I need to have a clutter-free existence negates the stress-free feeling of having a clutter-free space. Does that make sense? I'm serious, it stresses me out just to think about holding a yard sale or going through the boxes (left by my grandmother) in the basement. Am I a bad person?
So I have decided that for me, for now, the clutter that I will worry about is the build up. The plaque of life. It's the stuff that accumulates in boxes, in corners, in closets, and in the basement. Stuff I could not care less about but that will get out of control and make my place look messy if I get lazy about it. If I don't add anything to my basement of boxes, that is something!
So here are my new rules for de-cluttering my life. I am hoping that it is a low-impact solution that will produce some really good long-term results; truly reducing what I have to only what makes me happy:
1) Every time I go to the dump I have to bring something more than normal trash. I go to the dump every two weeks or sometimes more. Now when I go I bring something other than my normal accumulation of trash and recycling. This has included:
- Clothes for the Salvation Army drop box
- Old files
- A whole box of Josten's yearbook marketing ridiculousness (yeah, I'm a middle school yearbook advisor)
- Books for the community "put and take" book drop
- Old tupperware that is broken or missing lids
- Old moving boxes that can't be used again
3) What what I'm buying. If I don't need it, love it, or have a space for it, it doesn't come home. This is especially of true of things like art (no more wall space, no more art).
4) [In direct opposition to what I said above] This semester I am trying out only buying books once I have already read, or partially read the library's copy. It only works because I'm no longer competing with others for the same library copies. Hopefully I won't have another semester like the last one where summer came and some of my books were still wrapped in plastic. Similarly, if I bought a book for a class which is no longer of interest or use to me in my studies, it gets sold or donated. Period.
5) I got rid of my old desk system. Now mail is either saved in my files or thrown out the day it arrives. I have stopped saving things like gas bill stubs and bank statements. The amount of paper in this house has already been greatly reduced.
Does anyone have any other ideas that fit my system (no all-day purges, no challenges based on arbitrary numbers, no judgments made about what I choose to keep)? Baby steps to less stuff. Baby steps to less stuff. BABY STEPS.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
And Then There Was One
As we emerge from Labor Day, college students are gathering back on campuses not only to start the fall semester, but also, in some cases, to vote for the first time in a presidential election. There is no bigger issue on campuses these days than environment/energy. Going into this election, I thought that — for the first time — we would have a choice between two “green” candidates. That view is no longer operative — and college students (and everyone else) need to understand that.
With his choice of Sarah Palin — the Alaska governor who has advocated drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and does not believe mankind is playing any role in climate change — for vice president, John McCain has completed his makeover from the greenest Republican to run for president to just another representative of big oil.
Given the fact that Senator McCain deliberately avoided voting on all eight attempts to pass a bill extending the vital tax credits and production subsidies to expand our wind and solar industries, and given his support for lowering the gasoline tax in a reckless giveaway that would only promote more gasoline consumption and intensify our addiction to oil, and given his desire to make more oil-drilling, not innovation around renewable energy, the centerpiece of his energy policy — in an effort to mislead voters that support for drilling today would translate into lower prices at the pump today — McCain has forfeited any claim to be a green candidate.
So please, students, when McCain comes to your campus and flashes a few posters of wind turbines and solar panels, ask him why he has been AWOL when it came to Congress supporting these new technologies.
“Back in June, the Republican Party had a round-up,” said Carl Pope, the executive director of the Sierra Club. “One of the unbranded cattle — a wizened old maverick name John McCain — finally got roped. Then they branded him with a big ‘Lazy O’ — George Bush’s brand, where the O stands for oil. No more maverick.
“One of McCain’s last independent policies putting him at odds with Bush was his opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,” added Pope, “yet he has now picked a running mate who has opposed holding big oil accountable and been dismissive of alternative energy while focusing her work on more oil drilling in a wildlife refuge and off of our coasts. While the northern edge of her state literally falls into the rising Arctic Ocean, Sarah Palin says, ‘The jury is still out on global warming.’ She’s the one hanging the jury — and John McCain is going to let her.”
Indeed, Palin’s much ballyhooed confrontations with the oil industry have all been about who should get more of the windfall profits, not how to end our addiction.
Barack Obama should be doing more to promote his green agenda, but at least he had the courage, in the heat of a Democratic primary, not to pander to voters by calling for a lifting of the gasoline tax. And while he has come out for a limited expansion of offshore drilling, he has refrained from misleading voters that this is in any way a solution to our energy problems.
I am not against a limited expansion of off-shore drilling now. But it is a complete sideshow. By constantly pounding into voters that his energy focus is to “drill, drill, drill,” McCain is diverting attention from what should be one of the central issues in this election: who has the better plan to promote massive innovation around clean power technologies and energy efficiency.
Why? Because renewable energy technologies — what I call “E.T.” — are going to constitute the next great global industry. They will rival and probably surpass “I.T.” — information technology. The country that spawns the most E.T. companies will enjoy more economic power, strategic advantage and rising standards of living. We need to make sure that is America. Big oil and OPEC want to make sure it is not.
Palin’s nomination for vice president and her desire to allow drilling in the Alaskan wilderness “reminded me of a lunch I had three and half years ago with one of the Russian trade attachés,” global trade consultant Edward Goldberg said to me. “After much wine, this gentleman told me that his country was very pleased that the Bush administration wanted to drill in the Alaskan wilderness. In his opinion, the amount of product one could actually derive from there was negligible in terms of needs. However, it signified that the Bush administration was not planning to do anything to create alternative energy, which of course would threaten the economic growth of Russia.”
So, college students, don’t let anyone tell you that on the issue of green, this election is not important. It is vitally important, and the alternatives could not be more black and white.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)