Duane Shank sent an NY Times Op-ed by Nicholas Kristof around to the Sojo staff entitled "Do-Gooders with Spreadsheets." I'm pasting an exerpt below. To view the entire article, you can e-mail a sojostars blog contributor or subscribe to NY TimesSelect - if you are a subscriber, the link to the article is at www.nytimes.com/ontheground.
Kristof is reporting on his experience at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, and notes the presence of a lot of "social entrepeneurs" at the Forum:
"So what’s a social entrepreneur? Let me give a few examples among those at the forum in Davos.
• In Africa, where children die of diarrhea from bad sanitation, Isaac Durojaiye runs a franchise system for public toilets. He supplies mobile toilets to slum areas, where unemployed young people charge a small fee for their use. The operators keep 60 percent of the income and pass the rest back to Mr. Durojaiye’s company, Dignified Mobile Toilets, which uses the money to buy new toilets.
• Nic Frances runs a group that aims to cut carbon emissions in 70 percent of Australian households over 10 years. His group, Easy Being Green, gives out low-energy light bulbs and low-flow shower heads — after the household signs over the rights to the carbon emissions the equipment will save. The group then sells those carbon credits to industry to finance its activities, and it is now aiming to expand globally.
• In the U.S., Gillian Caldwell and her group, Witness, train people around the world to use video cameras to document human rights abuses. The resulting videos have drawn public attention to issues like child soldiers and the treatment of the mentally ill. Now Ms. Caldwell aims to create a sort of YouTube for human rights video clips...
'The key with social entrepreneurs is their pragmatic approach,' said Pamela Hartigan of the Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship, which is affiliated with the World Economic Forum. 'They’re not out there with protest banners; they’re actually developing concrete solutions.'
...they are showing that what it really takes to change the world isn’t so much wealth or power as creativity, determination and passion. "
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Monday, January 22, 2007
Government is Not a 4-Letter Word
It is no secret that Americans are distrustful of government. In a conversation I had the other day with an employee of a Republican Senator, the same old arguments came up when talking about "helping the poor" - it'll raise taxes, and aren't private and faith-based groups better positioned to help these folks anyway?
I am very sympathetic to the accusation that government programs are often top-heavy and loaded with waste, inefficiency, and bureaucracy. Goverment programs - indeed - are not the solution to all of our problems. I am not a poster child for government programs. However, in our zest to quickly eschew anything that contains the "G" word and "helping people" in the same sentance, I think Americans often forget the good that government can do when properly funneled. While government policy alone will not end poverty, it must be one tool in our toolbelt. The "free market" (which is anything but free - have you seen our trade policy and subsidy packages?) will not be looking out for everyone, and well-placed policy can go a long way toward helping some of those left out and left behind without penalizing everyone else.
One pertinent example is the debate over the minimum wage. The house easily passed a "clean" bill a couple weeks ago. However, it looks like the bill will not be so lucky in the Senate. It is expected that our Senators will attempt to attach a wide range of provisions and amendments, which not only will grow the deficit in the form of tax relief, but will also punish some of the low-wage workers that the increase is designed to help. This should be one of those "no-brainer" votes - it's been 10 years since the last increase, 29 states have already preempted the govt. by raising it on their own, and 86% of Americans support the raise. But NO... a handful of politicians will reject a common sense approach to this raise and load the bill down with "poison pills" and anti-worker, pro-business amendments. So much for something being easy...
Some of these points about the value and necessity of common sense, legislative approaches to poverty-reduction are well made by Paul Krugman in his Christmas op-ed in the NYTimes, which is brief and worth the read:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/122606C.shtml
He looks to the success Britain has had in recent years in fighting poverty by simply enacting some common sense approaches. And before you critique it before reading it, it is not socialism; it is not big government; it is not government handouts. It is common sense legislation that puts the common good ahead of partisan bickering and ideological martyrdom.
It is a shame that in America, I just don't have the faith that our parties can come together and enact similar measures, even when they have done well in other nations and seem to make sense. Raising the minimum wage is case-in-point. We'll see if the debate in the Senate proves me wrong.
I am very sympathetic to the accusation that government programs are often top-heavy and loaded with waste, inefficiency, and bureaucracy. Goverment programs - indeed - are not the solution to all of our problems. I am not a poster child for government programs. However, in our zest to quickly eschew anything that contains the "G" word and "helping people" in the same sentance, I think Americans often forget the good that government can do when properly funneled. While government policy alone will not end poverty, it must be one tool in our toolbelt. The "free market" (which is anything but free - have you seen our trade policy and subsidy packages?) will not be looking out for everyone, and well-placed policy can go a long way toward helping some of those left out and left behind without penalizing everyone else.
One pertinent example is the debate over the minimum wage. The house easily passed a "clean" bill a couple weeks ago. However, it looks like the bill will not be so lucky in the Senate. It is expected that our Senators will attempt to attach a wide range of provisions and amendments, which not only will grow the deficit in the form of tax relief, but will also punish some of the low-wage workers that the increase is designed to help. This should be one of those "no-brainer" votes - it's been 10 years since the last increase, 29 states have already preempted the govt. by raising it on their own, and 86% of Americans support the raise. But NO... a handful of politicians will reject a common sense approach to this raise and load the bill down with "poison pills" and anti-worker, pro-business amendments. So much for something being easy...
Some of these points about the value and necessity of common sense, legislative approaches to poverty-reduction are well made by Paul Krugman in his Christmas op-ed in the NYTimes, which is brief and worth the read:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/122606C.shtml
He looks to the success Britain has had in recent years in fighting poverty by simply enacting some common sense approaches. And before you critique it before reading it, it is not socialism; it is not big government; it is not government handouts. It is common sense legislation that puts the common good ahead of partisan bickering and ideological martyrdom.
It is a shame that in America, I just don't have the faith that our parties can come together and enact similar measures, even when they have done well in other nations and seem to make sense. Raising the minimum wage is case-in-point. We'll see if the debate in the Senate proves me wrong.
Community and Jesus
From Saturday's Upper Room Daily Reflection (http://www.upperroom.org/daily/):
WE CAN BE SURE that Jesus keeps his promise and that when we gather in his name, he will be with us. We are often blessed by being in community. We receive encouragement, guidance, comfort, and hope by participating in a community. … These gifts of community are available to us all, and we receive them more readily when we remember that Jesus meets us there.
- Rueben P. JobA Guide to Prayer for All Who Seek God
Today’s Scripture Reading
The way God designed our bodies is a model for understanding our lives together as a church: … If one part hurts, every other part is involved in the hurt, and in the healing.
- 1 Corinthians 12:25-26, THE MESSAGE
Thought this was a good quote and scripture to post, since it has to do with being in community, and also about how this relates to our relationship with Jesus.
WE CAN BE SURE that Jesus keeps his promise and that when we gather in his name, he will be with us. We are often blessed by being in community. We receive encouragement, guidance, comfort, and hope by participating in a community. … These gifts of community are available to us all, and we receive them more readily when we remember that Jesus meets us there.
- Rueben P. JobA Guide to Prayer for All Who Seek God
Today’s Scripture Reading
The way God designed our bodies is a model for understanding our lives together as a church: … If one part hurts, every other part is involved in the hurt, and in the healing.
- 1 Corinthians 12:25-26, THE MESSAGE
Thought this was a good quote and scripture to post, since it has to do with being in community, and also about how this relates to our relationship with Jesus.
Friday, January 19, 2007
radically new kingdom
I was talking to Jon the other night about theological stuff, and when we started talking about “new kingdom” kind of stuff, I realized once again that I really can’t imagine a radically new kingdom (even though I was almost convinced during Advent this year), and I don’t know if I want to believe in it either.
Something about believing that God is a creative God, and the world we live in being a creative world, and the fact that destruction and death are also tied up in that creativity – so if a “new kingdom” is supposed to mean some kind of absence of suffering or death, then I don’t think I can believe in that. Or maybe it does allow death and destruction, but we’re all just able to deal with it healthily, and the point of a new kingdom is that everything is “just” – but the whole “lion laying down with the lamb” thing still points to no destruction, no more “cycle of life and death”. So, I don’t know if believing in a heaven-ish realm makes me more a mystic or not, or more of a this world is the be-all end-all kind of person. Because, I tend to believe that there’s this “afterlife” where we all go to heaven and keep on living in some way that’s not really physical and pretty different than this world, and maybe there’s this spirit mass that we all go into, and then people are created out of that to be reincarnated back on this world, or maybe we are still encapsulated souls to a certain extent in the afterlife, and we keep on having particular personalities and growing as individuals, etc. But that doesn’t really take into account any kind of “second coming” or “new heaven and new earth” or thing where we all are just buried in the ground and are brought back to life when a new kingdom reigns or whatever – or maybe it does, if things are just on a much larger time scale, like the idea that universes are created and collapsed, created and collapsed, etc. – and the “new heaven and new earth” will eventually come, but it’s not necessarily anything we necessarily should concern ourselves with because it’s such a long way down the road – but then, if I say I’m trying to bring the “new kingdom” into being right now, how can I even reference something I don’t really believe in and can’t even imagine? I think I might be able to say that in the sense that I don’t really believe in an actual “new kingdom” that will come in the future, but that we’re bringing a new kingdom to fruition every day – but what is that even supposed to mean? It’s not that I actually like suffering/sin/brokenness/addictions/stale-ness/not growing/injustice/war/violence/etc. – but I kind of feel like these are just facts of life/the human experience that we have to deal with, and not necessarily envision a world without them, but envision lives where people grow through them, and where, say, peace is experienced more often than violence, but always in relation to the violence and acknowledging the violence and in prayer over the violence.
As a side note, Jon prayed a little prayer that I would have a dream of the “new kingdom” that night, but I don't think that really worked, because I didn't have any dreams – though I may have, and I just didn’t remember it the next morning. BTW – I think this whole type of thought process is why I think I’m Jewish sometimes (but not really, because I’m kind of uber-Christian).
Something about believing that God is a creative God, and the world we live in being a creative world, and the fact that destruction and death are also tied up in that creativity – so if a “new kingdom” is supposed to mean some kind of absence of suffering or death, then I don’t think I can believe in that. Or maybe it does allow death and destruction, but we’re all just able to deal with it healthily, and the point of a new kingdom is that everything is “just” – but the whole “lion laying down with the lamb” thing still points to no destruction, no more “cycle of life and death”. So, I don’t know if believing in a heaven-ish realm makes me more a mystic or not, or more of a this world is the be-all end-all kind of person. Because, I tend to believe that there’s this “afterlife” where we all go to heaven and keep on living in some way that’s not really physical and pretty different than this world, and maybe there’s this spirit mass that we all go into, and then people are created out of that to be reincarnated back on this world, or maybe we are still encapsulated souls to a certain extent in the afterlife, and we keep on having particular personalities and growing as individuals, etc. But that doesn’t really take into account any kind of “second coming” or “new heaven and new earth” or thing where we all are just buried in the ground and are brought back to life when a new kingdom reigns or whatever – or maybe it does, if things are just on a much larger time scale, like the idea that universes are created and collapsed, created and collapsed, etc. – and the “new heaven and new earth” will eventually come, but it’s not necessarily anything we necessarily should concern ourselves with because it’s such a long way down the road – but then, if I say I’m trying to bring the “new kingdom” into being right now, how can I even reference something I don’t really believe in and can’t even imagine? I think I might be able to say that in the sense that I don’t really believe in an actual “new kingdom” that will come in the future, but that we’re bringing a new kingdom to fruition every day – but what is that even supposed to mean? It’s not that I actually like suffering/sin/brokenness/addictions/stale-ness/not growing/injustice/war/violence/etc. – but I kind of feel like these are just facts of life/the human experience that we have to deal with, and not necessarily envision a world without them, but envision lives where people grow through them, and where, say, peace is experienced more often than violence, but always in relation to the violence and acknowledging the violence and in prayer over the violence.
As a side note, Jon prayed a little prayer that I would have a dream of the “new kingdom” that night, but I don't think that really worked, because I didn't have any dreams – though I may have, and I just didn’t remember it the next morning. BTW – I think this whole type of thought process is why I think I’m Jewish sometimes (but not really, because I’m kind of uber-Christian).
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
The christening of the new Sojo interns blog
As per the suggestion in our community meeting last night, I'm starting us off with the current question from the "On Faith" section of the Washington Post:
"Have women fared well or badly in the world's religions down through the ages? Why?"
If you want to check out what people are saying on the Washington Post's website, the link is http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/.
This is particularly interesting, since we have 5 women and 4 men in the group, with varying degrees of feminism throughout - and since the lack of women in leadership roles at Sojourners has been a topic of recent discussion, as it relates to our efforts toward increased "diversity" in the organization. Our discussions don't often move past a statement and some complaints that women do not have as much leverage and voice in our organization (as in many places throughout society). But I think this question moves to a deeper place, examining the roots and history of women's roles and treatment in society as it is manifested in religion, and informs our perspective on women's roles in religion today. Having a sense of where we're coming from helps us to address all the muck (and great stuff, too) that we deal with today and navigate our way healthily and fruitfully into the future.
"Have women fared well or badly in the world's religions down through the ages? Why?"
If you want to check out what people are saying on the Washington Post's website, the link is http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/.
This is particularly interesting, since we have 5 women and 4 men in the group, with varying degrees of feminism throughout - and since the lack of women in leadership roles at Sojourners has been a topic of recent discussion, as it relates to our efforts toward increased "diversity" in the organization. Our discussions don't often move past a statement and some complaints that women do not have as much leverage and voice in our organization (as in many places throughout society). But I think this question moves to a deeper place, examining the roots and history of women's roles and treatment in society as it is manifested in religion, and informs our perspective on women's roles in religion today. Having a sense of where we're coming from helps us to address all the muck (and great stuff, too) that we deal with today and navigate our way healthily and fruitfully into the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)