I don’t write about politics here on That Wife very often because as fun as the increased traffic can be people can sometimes get stupidly crazy about the issues (no matter how many times I revise the post to avoid unnecessary controversy) but I’m going to head in that direction today to make a plea for pragmatism, sanity, and just plain common sense.

There are a lot of very conservative people in the area where I’m from, and many of my family members are dyed-in-the-wool Republicans to the core. There is nothing wrong with being a Republican or a Democrat, as both parties have valid points and a lot of good in them. Where I roll my eyes in disgust though, is when I see people who are so pig-headedly in favor of one party that they feel it’s their duty to oppose anything the other stands for just to stick it to ‘em.
An awesome example from my Facebook page: Earth Day several years back. What an awesome way to remind people how lucky we are to have the earth providing the things we need to survive, right?. (And to get religious for just a moment, God put a lot of time into the place we live, you know?) I’m seeing all sorts of status updates about how this person is going to do this to use less resources, and that person is going to recycle everything for an entire month to try to get in the habit.
Then I see someone I know post something along the lines of “Tonight I’m going to leave all the lights on and go drive my diesel truck for no reason at all. Ha! Ha! Ha! Take that Earth Day!”
This person’s political affiliations? Republican. I get that it’s commonly accepted that Democrats are tree-huggers and Republicans are gung ho about digging for oil. But if that friend of mine on Facebook actually did the things he said he would do, all he did was waste his own money. I can’t see any reason why it has to be a “Democratic thing” to want to be nice to the earth and conserve limited resources. If you watch this video you’ll learn, like I did, that overconsumption of the earth’s limited resources is a serious problem and we have to change the way we are doing things.
But this isn’t a post about overconsumption.
This is about my friend on Facebook feeling like he had to choose between being a Republican or working to conserve the earth’s resources. He felt like he couldn’t support Earth Day because that would mean he supports the Democrats. That’s silly, and in this case, wasteful and ignorant.
Recently I felt like we saw this play out on a national level. Under Nancy Pelosi’s guidance the House instituted the “Green the Capitol” program. According to the Wikipedia article on this program the following happened between 2007 and 2011:
- Purchased renewable wind power for 100% of House electricity usage
- Swithced from coal to natural gas in the Capitol Power Plant for House Operations
- Eliminated all Styrofoam and plastic food service items in House food service operations and replaced them with biodegradable plates, utensils and packaging
- Implemented a House recycling program that sorts compostable waste and use a pulper to reduce waste stream by more than 50% and 118 tons of landfill waste have been diverted since the House began composting in December 2007
- Purchased all-electric, zero emission GEM car for use in House of Representatives
I’ve also read that they were going to (or did?) install low-flow toilets in House office buildings, installed thousands of energy-efficient light-bulbs (which this guy hates I’m sure), and start serving organic food into the cafeterias. (If I find out that the Rebuplicans threw out everything but kept the organic food I’m going to laugh maniacally and then go into my room and cry over the irony.)
The reason the Republicans are scrapping this plan? We’re being told that the program, which costs $475,000/year is neither cost-effective nor energy-efficient. “The impact made by the program was equivalent to taking just one car off the road annually,” according to Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Calif. Apparently this is all a big joke to the GOP, as a press aide to John Boehner’s tweeted “The new majority - plasticware is back.”
There are plenty of bloated government-sponsored programs throughout the United States, why would the Republicans go after this one so quickly? I think it’s because came from the Democrats, and they seem think that the best way to be a Republican is to be on the opposite side of the other guy. (And to be clear, I think Democrats do this sometimes too, but not nearly as often as Republicans. I consider myself to be a member of neither party.)
Why should they keep the Green the Capitol program in place? Because it sets a good precedent for the rest of America. It shows citizens that we have to take the responsibly to reduce our consumption seriously, because we are screwing our children’s children over otherwise. I get that the poor poor elected officials were having a hard time cutting up their chicken with the earth-friendly utensils, but wouldn’t a better solution be to *gasp*, not use one-time use utensils? When it comes to coffee cups, why not stop supplying them altogether and let representatives bring their own mugs and *gasp again* take care of cleaning them out each time they use them? To say that throwing out hundreds of plasticware every day is not something to worry about now is to act as though the Pacific Garbage Patch and overflowing landfills are no problem at all. Out of sight, out of mind, right?
Well this kind of turned into a post about overconsumption a little bit, didn’t it? The message I started out with though, and that I hope I got across, is that you don’t have to choose one side. You can develop your own ideology that includes information from a variety of sources, educate yourself, and shape based on what you believe. Not what a bunch of donkeys or elephants say. I hope the Republicans plan on initiating their own system to help conserve and preserve the earth’s natural resources, because that’s an issue that crosses all party lines.
I can’t see any sane, intelligent, logical reason why anyone would ever be against campaigning for Mother Nature.















March 17th, 2011 on 8:42 am
I’ve been thinking a lot recently about the values we want to teach our daughter, and those thoughts have lead me to cloth diapers (among other things). My first few arrived yesterday and I’ll spend the weekend prepping them… I’m excited to do something that’s good for my baby, my budget, and my planet.
Reply
March 17th, 2011 on 8:47 am
I’m frequently in the House and Senate office buildings for work. Our elected officials as a whole exude an attitude of entitlement that absolutely disgusts me. I bet Hell would freeze over before an elected official got their own coffee, let alone drink it from a ceramic mug they brought from home. Majority or minority, the majority of our elected officials in D.C. are not in touch with reality. It’s my biggest complaint since moving here, it’s not the “real” world.
Reply
March 17th, 2011 on 8:48 am
I don’t get it either. Especially because I think they would earn more votes and confidence from voters if they gave up and embraced being environmentally conservative, just like they embrace being fiscally conservative.
Reply
March 17th, 2011 on 8:49 am
Very much agreed, Jenna! I don’t see why conserving resources and respecting the Earth we live on needs to be a partisan issue. (Then again, I am a “tree-hugging Democrat,” so what do I know?)
Reply
March 17th, 2011 on 8:53 am
THANK YOU! I don’t understand the mentality “if you’re (blank) and I’m (the opposite of blank), then I have to disagree with every policy you have.” It’s ineffective, dangerous, and a waste of time.
In a somewhat-related point, a woman at the gym the other day was trying to link the Japanese earthquake to global warming and the bad environmental policies of the Republicans. I’m a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat, but…seriously? Hasn’t this woman heard of plate tectonics? Not everything bad in the world is caused by the opposing political party.
Reply
March 17th, 2011 on 8:57 am
I agree. As Americans we are very good at customizing. Be it our parenting methods, religion, homes, coffee order at Starbucks. Yet, when it comes to politics we accept an ideology (Rep./Dem.) hook, line and sinker. But I wonder, in this fast paced, instantly gratified country we live in, do we vote along party lines b/c it’s easy? No need to educate ourselves or critically think about what is really best for our nation? But then, we were founded upon a declaration that it’s about my “pursuit of happiness”…why care about anyone else? Right? :-/
Reply
Lea Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 9:44 am
Agreed! my 2 BFFs and I have never been shy about talking politics with each other, even as little kids. Back then, we basically followed our parents’ ideologies. As we’ve gotten older, our views have changed in many different ways, mellowing and developing based on experience. One is a conservative Catholic with strong immigration rights views, one is a social liberal who favors a limited government, and I’m a pro-life 2nd amendment tree-hugging liberal. Vive la difference!!
Reply
March 17th, 2011 on 8:57 am
Thanks, Jenna! I was a bit worried when you said you were going to do a political post, but I completely agree with this – what I want most out of a politician is someone who will be reasonable and willing to work out a compromise, not someone who thinks the other party is the Devil himself.
Reply
March 17th, 2011 on 9:01 am
Very well said. I wish more people understood the concept of forming their own opinions and that its ok to agree with certain points on both sides of the aisle.
Reply
March 17th, 2011 on 9:11 am
We are dealing with this in Wisconsin right now. I’m a die hard democrat that didn’t vote for him, but I knew a lot of democrats who voted for Scott Walker, because they thought we were getting someone that was going to balance our budget. Instead we got someone (along with our Senate majority leader) who is so extreme, so unreasonable and unable to compromise. This is exactly what you are talking about– the state is so divided among dems and republicans right now. Instead of working together, meeting in the middle, to find a solution to balance our budget, dems have to go run and hide in IL and start recalls of the republican senators.
Reply
March 17th, 2011 on 9:12 am
Love. I don’t care if someone is republican if they know why they lean more towards that political party. It’s the people that vote straight ticket just because they’ve been doing that their whole lives and can’t discuss issues that I find annoying. I think this is pretty logical.
Reply
March 17th, 2011 on 9:16 am
amen amen amen!
Reply
March 17th, 2011 on 9:27 am
Why is it so difficult to have a reasonable political discussion? I am genuinely interested in learning others’ political beliefs, however, I am not interested in being called names for having different beliefs.
Reply
Tiffany Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 10:06 am
i was thinking this same thing. i think some names were thrown around in this post that didn’t need to be there. sad.
Reply
Anne Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 3:20 pm
The only names I recall being thrown out there was donkeys and elephants, which are the party symbols. I honestly don’t really see where people could get “offended” from this post. The moral? Be kind to our earth, don’t be contrary just for the sake of party lines….dont see the problem there….
Reply
March 17th, 2011 on 9:27 am
Excellent post Jenna!
I’ve come into my own in the last 6 months in terms of politics, and that person seems to be a fiscally conservative tree-hugging, socially liberal, environmentally conscious, organic local foodie. Does that automatically make me a Democrat? I don’t think it has to.
(side story: my neighbors, with their “NOBama” bumper stickers, “warm up” their vehicle for 45 minutes EVERY MORNING. Even if it’s 45 degrees out! Even with gas at $3.29/ gallon in Montana! Talk about waste.)
I’d like there to be a 3rd, centrist party. One that can find common ground that we all agree on. Things like “the deficit is bad” while also saying “ameliorating our impact on the environment is good”. I think women are more common-sense, less hot-headed, and more willing to compromise the means to accomplish the goal. I think we need more intelligent women in politics.
Reply
March 17th, 2011 on 9:28 am
Great post. I fail to understand why BOTH sides feel the need to pick at (relatively) small programs like this rather than fix the glaring problems with this country’s entitlement programs. As though that 500K will even make a dent in fixing the deficit.
I heard on NPR I think, that the Republicans were really excited about repealing this program and bringing back Styrofoam. *sigh* I mean, when McDonalds gives that stuff up, they must be on the wrong side of that debate …
Reply
March 17th, 2011 on 9:31 am
The longer I live the more I realize the need to compromise. Sometimes it’s hard and I think that I’m glad I’m not in politics because it would be difficult to have to always compromise what you believe in, but it’s the only way to get anything done! But both sides can get so firmly entrenched in what they want to have happen that they can’t give a little on something to achieve their bigger goal. Both parties are afraid of the ‘slippery slope’ and allowing the other party too much power.
There are lots of issues where we could compromise and come to logical, agreeable conclusions if either side weren’t so deathly afraid of losing even an inch of ground – the environment, money management and programs, and even abortion. While I identify a lot more with Conservative/Republican ideas, it would absolutely silly of me to dismiss all Democrat-originated ideas simply because of their origin or not try to meet in the middle with those of a differing opinion. We all have common ground somewhere!
Reply
March 17th, 2011 on 9:48 am
I completely agree on how important it is to be able to compromise and accept that an other party may have a better idea.
In France while we have two main party equivalent to the Republicans and Democrats, we also have a lot of smaller parties goingt from extreme right (nationalists) to extreme left (communists). While in main elections it’s usually either one of the big parties that gets most votes, the smaller one do get a fair share too and therefore usually get a voice within the government.
I have to be honest and say that I did not vote at the last French election. While yes it was more complicated to votre from the US, my main concern was that I simply couln’t agree with either parties. I don’t really feel attached to a party so much as what values do I want to see defended. And on both sides there were things I simply couldn’t agree with. Sad.
Oh and that cancel the green program thing is just ridiculous. Why go back when progress is made? Would they go back to MS-DOS if CD-ROM computer had been installed by the opposite party?
Reply
Jackie Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 10:52 am
Haha, oh I wouldn’t put it passed us!
In France, to the parties get as dug into their trenches as they do here? I don’t know if I’m just getting older and noticing this stuff more, but I don’t remember everything being so black and white (or red and blue, if you will) back 10 years or so ago.
Reply
March 17th, 2011 on 9:49 am
Great post Jenna, I may have been in the minority but I was super excited to see a post on politics! I grew up in them, worked in them and now I tend to stay away from them. I must admit if forced to register I would go GOP, but I am a much more liberal Republican, especially on social issues, except the hubs and I both drive SUVs and I couldn’t imagine not owning a truck. I’m a blurry shade of purple instead of red or blue
My take on the it is its all a competition and who wins what. The Rs feel like they’re sticking it to Obama, Pelosi, etc and I think the Ds feel the same way when they’re in power. We’re all guilty – both sides. I admit I am jaded by politics after working in the system, its all a game it seems to those involved including the politician and the country and the public are the ones who lose unfortunately.
Reply
March 17th, 2011 on 9:54 am
I just wanted to touch on this quote from your piece because, while the whole piece spoke to me, this one quote really hit home. I preach this quote from my own blog when addressing parenting. New parents tend to look for an all-or-nothing approach to raising their kids; we all want to read a book and have its theory solve our problems. But I think parents quickly realize that raising children isn’t a black and white endeavor; and while the books can help, we have to do the best we can in the moment to raise our kids responsibly.
I generally think we get ourselves in trouble when we look to one thing or person or ideology to tell us what to do. Whether it be religion, politics or parenting, it would be great to have all the answers; that’s why there are so many people claiming to have them. Our responsibility as individuals and as a society is to be wary of those who say they have all the answers for us. We can only be our most responsible selves when we step back from the crowd and use our intelligence to determine our own ideologies.
Reply
Jenna Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 10:17 am
Yes, I sometimes get asked “what’s the ONE parenting book you would recommend”. There is no good answer to that. Believing there is one right way when it comes to parenting is going to leave you frustrated in the end.
Reply
March 17th, 2011 on 9:54 am
I was raised a Democrat. I hated the republican party with a passion. Then I married my husband who is a libertarian. He has taught me how to look into the issues and decide how I feel about them. I would say that in the last election I voted half Democrat and half Republican. I think I had a couple independents here and there too. I learned so much about myself when I really looked into the issues and was honest to myself about what I believe. I am a gun toting, pro choice, pro death penalty, pro assisted suicide, anti big government woman. I believe in equal rights for all but I don’t believe that the government should have to provide for the people. Quite an enigma huh? LOL! If I had to categorize myself, I would say that I am socially moderate but fiscally conservative.
Reply
Melissa Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 9:55 am
Oh and I want to add that your friend being anti conservation sounds more like an idiot thing than a republican thing.
Reply
Jenna Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 10:21 am
I really wasn’t trying to villify Republicans, that was just a good example from my life
Reply
Sara Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 1:06 pm
It’s kind of like how I’m a democrat in a sea of democrats, so people automatically assume that I’m 100% prochoice. Well, I’m not. I think (non health of the mother related) abortions should be restricted much more than they are now. But woe betide me the day I would say that in front of friends or family. So I just don’t. Also, I’m for the death penalty! People really get pissed off about that one.
Reply
liz Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 1:33 pm
Agreed-people make assumptions based on your party which isn’t care either. I’m republican and feel like ppl assume I’m some sort of anti-gay and I’m not. Not at all.
Reply
april Reply:
March 19th, 2011 at 11:12 pm
I also hate it when people lump you into one mass opinion just because you’re one party or the other- I am also a pro-death penalty democrat, who isn’t 100% pro choice. I’m a human, not a robot, we shouldn’t all think the same just because we identify with a group 60% of the time!
Reply
March 17th, 2011 on 9:56 am
GREAT post, Jenna. So true. The climate in Washington is almost poisonous right now, which is awful–with the environment, economy, and so many things going on overseas, this is NO time to engage in petty political games.
My FI always jokes that the last great president was George Washington, because of his humility (he was rather ambivalent about being president in the first place), but as I get older I realize that it does have a ring of truth to it. Humility would be a welcome trait for our leaders, on both sides, to adopt.
Reply
March 17th, 2011 on 10:13 am
$475,000 a year to set a precedent? I didn’t even know that Pelosi had implemented all this until the Republicans got rid of it. So there wasn’t much of a precedent set.
The fact is, it’s not government’s job to tell/show us how to live our lives. I can think of plenty of other ways to spend $475,000 that would EFFECTIVELY go towards green efforts.
Reply
Jackie Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 10:55 am
‘ it’s not government’s job to tell/show us how to live our lives.”
I think it kind of is. When our ways of life are having a direct impact on others, it is the government’s job to step in. Our rights only extend as far as other’s start, and our overconsumption is starting to really impinge on others’ rights. The problem is we don’t see the immediate effect of us filling up our car with gas and the *bam* an inner city child is diagnosed with asthma. That happens, its just not as in our face.
Reply
Sandra Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 11:01 am
“it’s not government’s job to tell/show us how to live our lives.”
Well, why not? The government tells us how to live our lives all the time. You wear a seatbelt or, when caught not wearing one, you pay a fine. This is because not wearing a seatbelt is risky to yourself, but also to those around you. That’s just one example – drinking laws, smoking laws, laws about what you can carry around in public (like a gun).
When the government obviously does function as an example to society, why shouldn’t it do so in this case? Especially considering that 500k is a drop in the bucket of government spending – that’s not a penny. It’s a fraction of a penny. 500k is nothing, and I do think it sets a precedent even if everyone doesn’t notice.
Reply
Kelly Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 11:20 am
As a libertarian, I don’t think any laws should exist that tell us what we can and cannot do to our own person. That is not why the government was put into place. A good example is the one you listed – seatbelts. Government passing a law mandating we wear seatbelts has done nothing to reduce car accident injuries or deaths. Studies have shown that wearing a seatbelt have given people a false sense of safety and therefore drive faster/more recklessly as a result…therefore leading to more accidents. Government’s intervention did nothing. I’m curious, how does not wearing a seatbelt provide risk to those around you? Seems to me that if you don’t wear a seatbelt and get into an accident, the only person you’re physically affecting is yourself.
I’m well aware that $500k is nothing to the government. It’s really easy to spend someone else’s money. I’m really confused why anyone would want to continue to fund a program that is proven to be ineffective? I agree with everyone that you shouldn’t align yourself 100% with a political party. I think it’s important to always keep your eyes open and reevaluate what’s going on, being said, etc…But I do think that our debt-riddled government should be looking to cut costs wherever they can. We’re the generation that are going to be paying the price of BOTH parties’ spending.
Reply
Sarah for Real Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 12:08 pm
Bravo Kelly! Very well spoken. I agree completely.
Reply
Brooke Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 12:55 pm
To respond to your question about the impact of wearing one’s own seatbelt on others: a friend was paralyzed, and another person killed, when the body of a third passenger, who was sitting unbelted in the back seat of the car, flew forward in the car and hit their heads.
(It is for this reason that my 80 lb dog is ALWAYS buckled in. Not only do I want her to stay safe – I want ME to stay safe!)
Reply
Melissa Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 3:45 pm
Well said Kelly! I also don’t believe that the government has any right to tell me what I can and cannot do with my person as long as I am not effecting someone elses ability to make decisions for their person. If our government worried less about how I get a tan for example and more about the budget, we would be in much better shape right now.
Reply
Katie Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 5:10 pm
And what about energy consumption, which impacts not only fellow Americans, but those elsewhere in the world (and for those in the third world, often to a far greater degree)? You might think that your consumption just affects your bill at the end of the month, but the implications go far beyond that.
Reply
Sandra Reply:
March 18th, 2011 at 7:01 am
Ahh, when you said “it isn’t” the government’s job, I thought you meant they didn’t do it, not that they shouldn’t. If we disagree about that then I doubt either of us will change our minds, but I understand why you said that now.
Oh, and a body flying around a car is a danger to every other person in the car. I doubt the statistics regarding seat belts would reflect that. That’s how seat belts affect others.
Reply
LifeOnMulberry Reply:
March 18th, 2011 at 1:19 pm
RE: “I’m curious, how does not wearing a seatbelt provide risk to those around you? Seems to me that if you don’t wear a seatbelt and get into an accident, the only person you’re physically affecting is yourself.”
Think about the $$ spent on the lawsuits and medical bills that come from the person who wasn’t wearing a seatbealt. If the person who wasn’t wearing a seatbelt sues another driver, they are going to contribute to clogging up the courts and drain tax $$ in the system. If they are insured and the insurance company pays for their bills, then that person is contributing to my higher insurance premiums by using so much of the health dollars from the insurance pool. If that injured, non-seatbelt person is UNINSURED, then they are going to drain our tax dollars because ultimately, the government or the private hospital will have to cover their care.
So, yeah, I’m good with the government enforcing the seatbelt law.
Reply
March 17th, 2011 on 10:15 am
Oftentimes when bills are presented, there are other bills or clauses added– that have little to do with the bill itself. That is why there are times when good bills don’t get passed, because something has been tacked on that the opposing party does not believe in. However, I am not sure if this is the case in this situation. I’d have to do a little research before I made an opinion, since my only source of information on this topic is you (not to say that I don’t trust you, but we all need to know what we’re siding with or against before we form an opinion).
That said, I generally vote Republican, even though I am not registered as one. I don’t consider myself a Republican, but I lean conservative because I am pro-life. The example with your friend being “anti-earth”– I see that a lot. I don’t agree with it. I believe that we should all take care of this earth. It’s our home, it will be the home of our children and future generations; it’s a gift. However, I am miffed as to why people who often fight for our earth’s rights don’t feel as strongly about the rights of children. What good is an earth if there is no one left on earth to care for it?
I just find it odd that they will fight tooth and nail for the earth, but have no problem with aborting a few million children.
Lastly, I find it strange when Christians use the term “mother earth.” It seems to unintentionally downgrade God’s role as creator.
Reply
Marissa C Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 10:20 am
Completely agree.
Reply
Sophia Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 10:48 am
Anna- I can see where you’re coming from on that point. Here’s a point from the flip side- personally I find it strange that people who are so passionate about the sanctity of life can turn around and judge welfare mothers, want to cut PP which provides services to pregnant women, and would like to see most entitlements cut because they are wasteful (recently this has affected most of the programs that benefit women and children). From the opposite side of the issue, it sometimes seems like the sanctity of life only applies in the womb, but once that baby is out, you’re on your own. Or heck, even once you’re pregnant you’re on your own for health care and hospital bills.
It just seems a little unbalanced to me when most of the pro-life people I know (I’m not making any assumptions about you, just going off my own experience) are also against welfare, WIC, food stamps, free health care for low income women, and sex education and free/low cost birth control. It seems like a pretty terrible Catch-22 (in my opinion).
When it comes down to it I think there are examples like that when you look into any issue- all of the passionately pro-life people I know support the war, which also kills thousands of innocent children, and most of the super liberal vegans I know are vehemently against killing any animals, but they’re pro-choice. Both of those stances can be viewed as pretty hypocritical, or illogical…
But truly, if you scratch any of us, hypocrisy shows up in our beliefs. I’ve kind of fallen in love with this quote from Jonathan Haidt, from the Happiness Hypothesis-
“Well, stop smirking. One of the most universal pieces of advice from across cultures and eras is that we are all hypocrites, and in our condemnation of others’ hypocrisy we only compound our own. Social psychologists have recently isolated the mechanisms that make us blind to the logs in our own eyes. The moral implications of these findings are disturbing; indeed, they challenge our greatest moral certainties. But the implications can be liberating, too, freeing you from destructive moralism and divisive self-righteousness.”
Jon Haidt, The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom, pp. 59-60.
I want to re-emphasize that I’m just mulling this over, agreeing with you on the double standard, and I’m just pointing out that double standards exist in almost any morality based opinion. Also, the quote does sound a bit harsh, so I REALLY want to clarify that I’m not calling you self righteous or anything like that. I just love that quote a lot because I think it speaks very forcefully and honestly about the complexities of our decisions based on morals, and you brought up a good point about logical inconsistencies that naturally arise in our moral frameworks. I know I have them, and I notice them in others.
Reply
Anna Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 11:21 am
I wasn’t offended in the slightest, because I agree with you. If someone calls themselves pro-life, they should be for the sanctity of human life in and OUTside of the womb.
About welfare, WIC, PP… I think these programs exist for a reason. They exist because we have people in this country who cannot afford to feed their families, take care of their bodies, etc. These programs also exist, I believe, because while our sense of community is growing with each day and hour (the internet, social media, etc. have all made this possible), in a way it is shrinking as well. We’re better connected to people half way around the world than we are to our neighbors. We’ve lost that sense of local community… and I think it was lost a long time ago. We’ve had the government step in and take over what I believe should be our own responsibility.
I’m deeply saddened by the people who wish to close down every government funded program… yet resist stepping up to the plate themselves. Where are the church or non-government soup kitchens and shelters? If you don’t believe in big government, and big government spending, then stand in the gap yourself and prove that individuals can be helped by individuals, not just by Uncle Sam. It’s a lot of words and no action, and I don’t support it in the slightest.
As to the remark about pro-lifers supporting war… I’m just as confused as you are on the matter. Support our troops, yes; support bloodshed? No (that said, when is it right for a nation to step in? I’m thinking specifically about the Holocaust, and the wealth of information that the US possessed about the Final Solution during the early 40s… and yet did little to stop the killing).
I appreciated your thoughts and comments.
Reply
Sophia Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 11:29 am
I appreciated yours as well
I especially loved this point-
“I’m deeply saddened by the people who wish to close down every government funded program… yet resist stepping up to the plate themselves. Where are the church or non-government soup kitchens and shelters? If you don’t believe in big government, and big government spending, then stand in the gap yourself and prove that individuals can be helped by individuals, not just by Uncle Sam. It’s a lot of words and no action, and I don’t support it in the slightest.”
I agree, completely.
Reply
Allison K Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 11:29 am
Anna-
I love your point “Where are the church or non-government soup kitchens and shelters? If you don’t believe in big government, and big government spending, then stand in the gap yourself and prove that individuals can be helped by individuals, not just by Uncle Sam.”
So, so well said.
Reply
Jackie Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 12:31 pm
I agree that the private sector should be helping, but as someone who works for a homeless shelter – we’re tapped out. We’re definitely not waiting for the government to pick up our slack. I think non-profits are doing everything they can (for the most part) but there is just too much work to be done for churches to do it all themselves.
Reply
Sara Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 1:08 pm
I really wish there was a like button for this comment thread. Really really.
Reply
Meg Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 1:15 pm
I work for a not for profit agency as a high school mental health counselor and trying to find the kids I work with the services they and their families need to function on a daily basis is like finding a needle in a haystack. There are so many cuts happening around my area (central new york) and probably other places too that make no sense to me. They are cutting to reduce debt or prevent it (they claim) but they are cutting the wrong things! I can’t find a shelter to take a low functioning special ed girl with a 1 year old baby to save my life (or more like hers)!
Reply
Anna Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 1:51 pm
My husband works for an agency that is primarily funded by government grants– he works with individuals struggling with addiction and/or mental health needs, and helps to get them reinstated back in the workforce, if at all possible. I know firsthand how much he struggles to get help for these people. The funny thing is that even with all of the cuts, he’s had more luck helping these individuals through acquaintances or friends in various professions or fields. This is what I mean by people coming alongside each other and helping out.
Jackie made an excellent point– that oftentimes, non-profits are all tapped out, and hence the need for government assistance. But I want to look at it from a slightly different perspective– people like Jackie (a volunteer), and the non-profit where she volunteers are the ones tapped out, not the entire community. It seems that there are always people who will give everything they have, while others do little or nothing to help. It’s like a group assignment (don’t we loooove those?), and one person pulls all the weight while the others sit around and eat pizza.
So in Jackie’s case, I would love to see the community pitch in more… not just the handful of individuals who are dedicated to the work already. And I really don’t buy that “Well, I’m not called to that…” line that some Christians like to throw around. We’re called to help those in need, period. There are different ways of helping, that is all.
Reply
Sophia Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 2:08 pm
THANK YOU. “They are cutting the wrong things”. Exactly.
I want to know why women, children, the poor, the homeless, and the mentally/physically/emotionally disabled are the ones making the “sacrifices” by having those programs cut, but it’s totally off the table to talk about raising taxes on millionaires.
If we were raising taxes AND making difficult cuts it would be easier to swallow. But when, for example, the Governor of Michigan eliminates 1.7 billion in tax breaks for seniors, the poor, and university donations in the name of “balancing the budget”, but then turns around and in the same sessions gives 1.8 billion in tax breaks to CORPORATIONS, it stinks. It stinks to high heaven.
Reply
R Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 3:18 pm
Love this whole thread – thanks ladies.
Reply
March 17th, 2011 on 10:20 am
I think you approached this from a really balanced perspective.
I’m the exact same way. I truly don’t care about one’s political affiliations, as long as they have been researched and are based on FACTS. Dems and Reps are both guilty of blinding following talking heads that aren NOT real news, but rather editorializing dressed up as an entertainment show under the heading of “news”.
I call my theory on politics “the purple couch theory”. If you and I are in a furniture store, and we come upon a $100 purple couch, I might say “oh my gosh! my favorite color! I need it right now, it will match with everything I own, and what a great price!”. You might say “eh, purple’s not my thing, I prefer neutrals, besides, I like futons instead of couches and that’s too expensive”. Both of those are totally valid differing opinions and observations, based on the facts we are presented with.
But if we’re looking at a purple couch and you say “I can’t believe they’re charging $300! And leopard print doesn’t match ANYTHING in my house” and I say “I disagree! I love armchairs, and it’s only $25!” then we’re clearly not talking about facts anymore, or even seeing what’s right in front of our faces.
My friends got a good laugh out of that “theory”. I don’t think it’s going to be in any political science books anytime soon, haha.
But seriously, with as easy as it is to get info nowadays, I am dumbfounded when people blindly believe whatever Beck/O’Reilly/Limbaugh says, or conversely whatever Maher/Matthews/Olberman says. They are pundits, and they are patting you on the head and spoon feeding you a very extreme version of their side of the truth. So many times I see quotes all over FB taken totally out of context, and with literally one freaking Google search I find not only the full quote, but the context, and the full story. And it’s usually not at ALL the way it was portrayed.
The truth is usually far more benign, far more centrist, and far less interesting or dramatic. But that doesn’t get ratings…
Reply
March 17th, 2011 on 10:24 am
Jenna,
While I agree with you on two points, that we should be conscious of what we consume and therefore put into landfills AND that we should form our own view regardless of party lines, I think you may have missed the mark on this post a bit. This came off, in my opinion, more anti-Republican then “let’s all love each other and agree to disagree.”
(Please do not take offense to this comment as I do not mean to put you or anyone who feels the same as you do down. I am a daily reader, occasional commenter and I PROMISE I am not trying to stir anything up. I just want you to know what I felt while reading today.)
And yes, I will go ahead and say that I am in fact a Republican. But I don’t make jokes about keeping the lights on all night long nor do we buy plastic ware in my home. I don’t think those are “Republican attitudes” I think they are “stupid attitudes.” Yes some people that say things like that are Republicans, but not all of us are.
I know that you did caveat this by saying that Democrats do this too, but even then you went back to “but Republicans do it more.” Do you think this post my stem a bit from your dislike/distrust for that party?
Respectfully,
Heather
Reply
LifeOnMulberry Reply:
March 18th, 2011 at 1:25 pm
I think that Jenna’s probably commenting on what’s in recent memory, in which the Democrats have had a majority and the Republicans are doing more of the stonewalling and stopping. I feel like the reverse was probably true when it was the other way around (Repub. President with Democrats in a minority but enough votes to stonewall).
Its cyclical, in my opinion.
Reply
March 17th, 2011 on 11:00 am
From my republican friends, I glean that they gain pride from man-made power. So, things like big, gas-guzzling trucks and the ability to have everything prepackaged in styrofoam. Having money to buy all new things, because they EARNED that money, goshdarnit! Since our species has created these awesome things, how can we say they’re bad?!! If they even allude to their peers that they’re sympathetic to conservation, they are afraid they’ll lose their Republican card.
From my democrat or liberal friends, I glean that they gain pride from our power to conserve our planet. Buying organic, using reusable grocery bags, wearing used clothing, investing in biodegradables, cloth diapering. And the same thing happens. I am a liberal, and I have gotten crap from other liberals for not driving a hybrid car. Or from driving to work at all. Or for being quite resolved on my future decision NOT to use cloth diapers. Sigh.
Like you said, people need to be reasonable. But in the end we’re all pack-animals, and it’s extremely hard for someone to stray from a flock without ridicule. Ah, keeping up appearances.
Reply
Momfish Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 8:09 pm
Here is the issue I have with this.
I don’t think Republicans gain pride from man-made power. I think Republicans take pride in the fact that we should have the FREEDOM to use the things we create, without the government interfering with that freedom. Republicans believe giving the power over the government too much (even in a positive area such as conservation) sends a message that us, as a free people, are weak and need the government to tell us how to live our lives.
Another issue is that Obama flies private jets around everywhere, has multiple cars that have to travel with him when he drives, and lives in a house that is unnecessarily large & harsh on energy. He doesn’t ride a bike around with his reusable grocery bags on the back. But he’s a decently extreme liberal – so how do you explain this? How is he keeping the appearance? He’s not – he’s having other people do it for him & he’s saying that’s what he stands for.
Republicans don’t like when Democrat politicians claim they’re “for the Earth” so people should have to use special light bulbs and shouldn’t be wasteful, but then they wear $1,000 suits and have people make their food for them.
For the record – I don’t get miy pride from man-made power or conserving our planet. I get my pride from loving people, and being a wife, mother, and a believer.
I’m not a Republican, or a Democrat.
Reply
Kristin ~ Bien Living Design Reply:
March 18th, 2011 at 7:50 am
I am Libertarian & tend to disagree with our president on the majority of issues…but he IS the President of the United States and has to be protected. He can just fly coach, drive himself around in a Prius, and bicycle to Whole Foods. it would be too dangerous. Sad, but true.
What I DO have a problem with is dignitaries & tons of people flying in their private jets to summits on the environment, oil, etc. issues.
Reply
Christiana Reply:
March 18th, 2011 at 3:34 pm
Considering most the house is in fact an office I’m not sure how much larger his actual living quarters are. Kristen is right in that he can’t just fly coach, or hang out in bumper to bumper traffic on 16th st waiting to be attacked. I like that our president lives in the house of the people – it is not the presidents own house, it is the house of the American people and that is reinforced daily.
Reply
March 17th, 2011 on 11:01 am
If you actually believed in conservation and were against over-consumption, you would stop using commercial airline flights. One airline flight has a MUCH bigger impact on carbon emissions than any of these tiny things that just make people feel good about themselves and have no appreciable impact on the environment. (In other words, Nancy Pelosi could have done more for the earth by foregoing her private jet than by any “just for show” Greening the Capitol measure.)
Reply
Sarah for Real Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 11:15 am
I agree on your point about Private jets, but I hope you aren’t suggesting that Jenna not fly anywhere anymore, commercially.
I think that’s where the “green” movement loses the general population. When activists take it over the edge and suggest radical changes. I believe it is important to maintain, even enhance our quality of life through sustainable choices. This doesn’t include sequestering myself to a 5 mile, bikable radius and never traveling anywhere.
Reply
Sophia Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 11:18 am
Amen and amen Sarah.
Reply
Nodakademic Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 12:07 pm
EXACTLY! When radical changes (on either side) are suggested, the general public cannot possibly comply. In a perfect world, no one would have to fly because our families and friends would all be close. No one would have to drive cars because we all would live in perfect, temperate climates with excellent bicycle friendliness. We could all shop local farmers markets and have the time to make our own clothes and compost our own soil and sing fa la la. But telling the average, time-crunched American that they have to do all these things? They aren’t going to do anything. People will make small changes (like reusable grocery bags), but your average person simply is not going to grossly inconvenience their life, refuse to fly to visit their family, get up 2 hours earlier so they can bike to work and take a shower when they get there, quit using hair products and makeup products and cleaning products, quit eating any processed food, etc. Most people do care about our planet, but most are simply not willing to sacrifice their happiness and time to become a martyr for the environment. Meeting in the middle’s really the best option–most people will gladly make small changes.
Reply
Sophia Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 11:17 am
Jessica, this is the problem I see with all or none/perfection logic as you’ve presented it…
Yes, of course, not using commercial airline flights would be better. But then, wouldn’t living in a shack in the woods and living off the land be better than that? We can always “one up” ourselves when it comes to green initiatives. We could one up ourselves into a corner where only “true” conservationists were those who shunned modern society and all of its conveniences- including medicine- and took to the woods in droves. But that’s not really any more sustainable than continuing to drive Hummers and guzzle water bottles like it’s no big deal.
The reason people focus on reducing consumption of things like plastic is because it is pretty easy to switch to glass/paper containers instead of plastic. It Is pretty easy to switch to energy saving appliances, low flow water heads, and better light bulbs. It’s pretty easy to switch to a stainless steel water bottle instead of buying water by the case. In some cases it’s pretty easy to use public transportation in big cities, or bike in the summer. I would say that these “tiny things” actually would add up to something big, because right now all the plastic we use has currently added up to FIVE very big things- namely, five enormous floating plastic garbage patches in every major body of water in our entire earth. One of them, the Pacific patch that Jenna mentioned, is twice the size of Texas.
I also think that this idea that “tiny changes” don’t have an “appreciable impact on the environment” is precisely why more people don’t try to do reduce their impact. Because they think “well, I drive a car and have 3 kids and fly 4 times a year, so really throwing away all this plastic/wasting water/wasting energy/driving a Hummer isn’t a big deal”. It’s an all or nothing shaming that makes people embarrassed to use re-usable bags if they’re driving a truck, because they’re viewed as “hypocrites”. Which I think is completely counterproductive.
I hear this a lot in treehuggery/green type circles, people always dismissing other people’s efforts as not being “enough” or “good enough”. The fact is that we could ALL be doing better in pretty much every area of our life, but instead of saying “well, since I’m not living off of the land in a shack hunting wild animals with no electricity I may as well just not even try” we should just be doing the best we can.
Reply
Jessica Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 11:37 am
My point is that when Nancy Pelosi champions a program that does almost nothing to help the environment (but is very costly to taxpayers) and then insists on taking a private jet everywhere, (unlike the new Republican speaker), that screams hypocrisy. It screams MORAL PREENING instead of actual action.
So for Jenna to single this out as a “Republicans are stupid” example, to me, just seems misguided, one-sided, and not very well thought out.
Reply
Nodakademic Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 12:09 pm
I see your point about the private jet! While Jenna did talk about Republicans a lot in her post–since it’s this bill that influenced her to write it–I don’t think she was trying to attack either party. At least, that isn’t the feeling I got. I think Democrats are just as prone to saying one thing and doing something completely different–I guess it’s the nature of politics and people in general!!
Reply
Jenna Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 5:41 pm
If it would make people happy I’ll write another one about how disgusted I am that the Wisconsin democrats fled the state rather than do their job. Then I will have attacked both parties!
Reply
Nodakademic Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 6:16 pm
It’s an equal opportunity political attack!
Reply
Alisha @ Wee Foodie Fashionista Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 4:39 pm
I don’t think Jenna ever said Republicans are stupid. In fact, I think she went to great lengths, and even titled the post in a way that conveyed this message: “both parties do stupid things occasionally, although both have a lot of good. if instead they could work together on some of their great ideas, wouldn’t that be fantastic?”
Half-a million dollars is not expensive to tax payers. It’s nothing. It’s less than a drop in the bucket. Half a million dollars that would in turn keep hundreds of tons of trash out of landfills is pure genius. It costs $116 million dollars a year for each solider in Afghanistan. Our federal deficit is $1.1 trillion dollars….without the war in Iraq and Afghanistan ($780 billion to date) or the tax cuts for corporations which started in 2000 with the Bush administration, there would be no deficit. Personally, I think that spending that money in order to conserve the earth we live on would be a valuable use of time and money for both liberals and conservatives. I would like to see more conservative leaders actually conserving something.
If we’re going to talk about wasting tax payer money, there are a lot of much bigger issues than a $500,000 to green the House. A previous poster also mentioned that money would be saved by using reusable mugs, low-flow toilets, and even composting.
Reply
Heather @ Brace Yourselves Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 1:00 pm
Sophia,
Thank you so much for mentioning the fact that some of us feel embarrassed of the little bit of effort that we are trying to do. I drive a big SUV, but we use reusable cups (I like a cup with a straw so I bought ones with glass straws) and we do the fabric grocery bags and other little things. But when you pull up in an Expedition there is automatic judgment that you are “one of them” and that your efforts are not as good.
Heather
Reply
Sophia Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 2:10 pm
Exactly. That makes me so sad! We are all trying to do better, and if we are shamed for what we are trying to do it doesn’t help anyone.
Reply
Matri Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 12:36 pm
Jessica, I see your point although maybe a little extreme. A better one would be, why don’t you use public transportation (which in Chicago is very good from what I’ve heard) instead of driving your personal car everywhere you go for convenience?
Reply
Marissa C Reply:
March 18th, 2011 at 12:21 am
Haha, ironically, my father is a mechanic that takes care of private jets. Sure–some are total splurges and wasteful, but I would argue that some are truly needed and a wise investment (usually in the case of large corporations). It made me SO mad when people freaked about the Detroit CEOs going to Washington DC on their private jets. Yeah…because you really want the person in charge of a multibillion dollar company wasting valuabe time at the airport?
Just another perspective
Reply
Christiana Reply:
March 18th, 2011 at 3:36 pm
But would this CEO be wasting time in the lounge with a laptop and smartphone? Probably not
Reply
Marissa C Reply:
March 18th, 2011 at 4:01 pm
Yes, actually, he/she would–especially considering that most airlines don’t have WIFI in flight. There is also the security risk. And the fact that private flights can be scheduled immediately and flown to remote areas not served by major airports.
When you have a private jet, you go to the hanger and get on the plane immediately–limited security, usually no waiting to take off. No parking at the airport, waiting to board.
If a company truly believes a CEO is essential enough to the operation of their business that they are paid as much as they are, they don’t want them “out-of-commission” for any period of time.
Believe me, I work for a large corporation that is VERY aware of its costs (corporate perks–ha!)…having a private jet wouldn’t fly unless it truly were financially justifiable.
Reply
Shanna Reply:
March 19th, 2011 at 8:14 pm
That’s a good point. I really don’t think most CEOs are worth what companies pay them (the ones that can afford private jets, not all companies). Unless it’s Steve Jobs….I think he’s worth WAY more than $1.
Reply
March 17th, 2011 on 11:07 am
Interesting post. I am a “tree hugger” and I’m NOT a democrat. Not republican either, for the record, though I once used to be.
I think it’s irrational for conservatives to be opposed to sustainable initiatives. Conservatives want a smaller government right? One great way to reduce the federal government would be to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Becoming a self-sufficient nation would greatly increase our individual freedoms and reduce the debt (increased jobs here, less moolah sent elsewhere).
Changing the way our food system works would be a HUGE step in reducing the size of the federal government and giving it back to private citizens (aka, reduce or eliminate federal government farming subsidies, stop the increasing surveillance on giant food operations, etc.).
Conservatives are scared of giant nations like China becoming more powerful than us right? Ok, then stop buying all the $hit they make! (Excuse my language… you can sensor that more if you want.) Shop local, buy US products, it’s patriotism people!
Reply
Sarah for Real Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 11:09 am
*By reducing the surveillance/control over giant food operations, I’m referring to those types of operations being eliminated altogether, which would inherently make food safer for everyone.
Reply
Lea Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 2:34 pm
Ooh, good one. Agree with everything you say here.
Reply
March 17th, 2011 on 11:08 am
Great post, Jenna!
Have you seen the clip of Rush Limbaugh mocking tsunami victims for recycling? (I realize Limbaugh is nowhere near representative of all Republicans). His whole idea was that if they “invented recycling” and “gave us the Prius” then “Gaia” shouldn’t have take them out. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/16/rush-limbaugh-mocks-japan-refugees_n_836384.html It’s hearbreakingly cruel and ignorant.
The crazy thing about cutting that program is that installing things like low-flow toilets usually saves money. If everyone started bringing their own coffee cups, that would be less money spent on styrofoam in the budget. And we will have to pay for our environmental choices. Right now I’m studying public health and I am taking a class on environment and public health. Now, I’ve always considered myself to be environmentally friendly, but mostly for the sake of respecting the Earth God gave us. But after reading all this info on how pollution affects health, how trash affects health, how easy it is to contaminate drinking water – I just am blown away. All of our choices have impacts, and too often our consumption negatively impacts others. These impacts are usually felt the most by the poor too. People living in inner cities, people in developing countries.
That’s where the Dems are dropping the ball, IMO. (and I say that as one of them). We need to make this issue about PEOPLE, about the rights that real live people have. We need to say “when we use too much plastic, the plastic factories emit carcinogens into the air, raising health care costs and killing innocent Americans” not “it’s bad for the sea turtles.” I mean, yeah, sure, it’s bad for sea turtles too, but not everyone cares about sea turtles. And people on both sides of the aisle care about people.
Reply
Sophia Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 11:26 am
I heard that Limbaugh rant too. For the life of me, I cannot understand how members of my family and some of my friends think he is a legitimate news source.
And I agree with all of your points, especially about how the Green Movement has dropped the ball,and how the Dems have portrayed it. It’s the same problem I have with how belief in Global Warming is some sort of line in the sand. To me, it doesn’t even matter if Global Warming is true or not. What *is* true is that Texas is the most polluted state in our nation, the 7th largest polluter in the WORLD, and has astronomical asthma rates. What *is* true is that you can test the soil and water around certain plants and it is filled with known carcinogens. What *is* true is that diesel trucks in certain urban areas on the East Coast are polluting the air to grotesquely unhealthy levels. What *is* true is that time and time again landfills and plants and factories are placed in the poorest neighborhoods, where they bear the brunt of the health and environmental impacts. But they’re poor, and voiceless, and hey, we get our plastic goods, so it doesn’t matter, right?
We don’t have to believe in Global Warming to get the message that pollution is bad. It’s as simple as a water/soil/air test. It’s as simple as “the people in this town have a cancer rate that is 5 times the national average, and I don’t think it’s just a coincidence”. It’s as simple as saying “oh, we have FIVE huge floating plastic garbage patches in our oceans, and one of them is twice the size of Texas….”.
I’m so frustrated with the way the conservation movement has come down to you either believe in Global Warming or you don’t, you’re either a treehuggery hippie Democrat or you’re a hardnosed Republican- it doesn’t have to be that way. It’s an arbitrary and false line that should never have been drawn. Even if you don’t believe in Global Warming, it’s kind of hard to miss the facts of the effect on humans, and that’s something we should all be concerned about, even if just for selfish self preservation.
Reply
March 17th, 2011 on 11:33 am
Jenna-
Fantastic post. I have to admit….I was really interested in and anticpating this post since you started mentioning it. I had NO idea where you were going go with it, but I think you made some great points.
And..I say Bravo to your readers/commenters for being polite and having a truly civil discussion.
Reply
March 17th, 2011 on 12:01 pm
I am a social worker and work with people every day who are victims of this country’s over-consumption and bad spending. It kills me, literally makes my heart hurt, to see how people are so ignorant to their over consumption. Meaning, people would rather spend their money on $300 crib bedding than donate it to their local food shelters to help people in need who can’t afford to feed themselves. I, like the previous poster, who said that individuals need to step in the gap where the government can’t/doesn’t, and take a stand. How can anyone, myself included, consciously pour money into so much crap and not act on the injustice we have in this country for the under represented populations!? Black/White, Democrat/Republican, Red/Blue..who cares? How can we as a nation stand by and spend ridiculous amounts of money on things we end up throwing away when people are homeless, hungry, being abused, suffering from mental health issues, etc?
Reply
Jackie Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 12:36 pm
I think the problem is our idea of “the American Dream.” That if you work hard enough, you can do absolutely anything. And so if you are poor, its because you didn’t try hard enough. And so there isn’t as much of a need to put our money into helping the poor because we question whether or not they deserve it.
As a Christian, that mentality really bothers me. Jesus never said, “Well, way the pros and cons, what you want to do with your money first, then ask if they deserve to be helped in the first place, and then decide if you want to help out or not but if you don’t that’s okay too.” He said help the poor. No questions asked. Now I think the government has the right to ask some of those questions, but as Christians, we’re called to help the poor. It drives me crazy when people refuse to help because the poor just should have worked harder. Argh.
Reply
Meg Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 1:06 pm
I definitely know why people don’t give to those in need and it really makes me angry and extremely frustrated, especially since I work with youth. But I’m with you- help the poor. End of story. Nothing left to say.
Reply
Sophia Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 2:13 pm
Jackie, that’s spot on. Our American Dream/bootstraps/Horatio Alger myth riddled culture places blame for being poor and hungry squarely on the shoulders of the poor, instead of looking at the cultural forces and socioeconomic constraints that conspire against so many people.
Reply
Jackie Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 2:21 pm
Agree. It’s a double edged sword because it gives people hope, but it also lets us justify why it’s OK if we’re at the top looking down at other people.
I always loved the saying “how can you pull yourself up by your bootstraps if you don’t have boots?”
Reply
Sophia Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 3:15 pm
Yes! I say that all the time.
Reply
R Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 3:22 pm
I love this thread too
Reply
LifeOnMulberry Reply:
March 18th, 2011 at 1:31 pm
Your comment about it being a double-edged sword is really interesting. Is it ethical to encourage people and tell them that “anything is possible” when you know that the odds are crazily against them and that they have only a minimal chance of escaping their current situation?
I dont have the answer, just something I’ve been considering/struggling with lately.
Reply
March 17th, 2011 on 12:32 pm
Thank you for this post! I consider myself to be on the liberal side of the political spectrum, though the older I get, the more I can appreciate the point of view of conservatives (on some issues). I can’t stand either the apparent anti-environmentalism of some on the right, or the apparent fear of some on the left to let government establish funding priorities and cut the fat, so to speak. We only hurt ourselves when we get so entrenched in black and white thinking that we can’t compromise on anything.
Reply
March 17th, 2011 on 12:47 pm
Hear, hear! Yay for thinking about specific issues rather than clinging to party divisions.
Reply
March 17th, 2011 on 12:48 pm
Great post, Jenna. I had read some of the same articles you had stumbled across, and remember reading the lame excuses–no one liked the sustainable cutlery because the spoons apparently melted in the soup after two bites (so, OK, let your soup cool a bit and enjoy some pre-bite conversation), and the cafeteria was apposed to metal cutlery because so many folks took their meals back to their offices and they would then stockpile drawers of dirty cutlery, never to be returned to the cafeteria.
As a teacher, I can say that 8 year olds learn pretty quickly to take care of things properly after their lack of care has caused it to disappear or become useless…so I see no reason why adults couldn’t do the same.
The other sad thing is that a system like that–living sustainably–needs trailblazers with big budgets to invest, which would hopefully lead to reforms in the system making it more efficient, and thus affordable for the rest of us lounging around in middle-class America. Based on the hypocrisy noted above, certainly this could be a program we can invest in!
Additionally, I’m all with Courtney and ready to sign up for the third party. I think there is a majority of folks who find that our two-party system doesn’t adequately represent them.
Thanks again for your commentary, Jenna!
Reply
March 17th, 2011 on 12:58 pm
Great post, Jenna!
When I was a freshman in college (seven whole years ago – I can’t believe it’s been that long!) I was taking an environmental history class and the professor said he didn’t understand people who didn’t consider themselves environmentalists. He asked, who goes around saying they hate trees or wish flowers and animals would die? (Ok, maybe people with allergies). But anyway, I think his point was that people get wrapped up in vilifying the “ist” words like environmentalist (or feminist, for that matter) – and can’t see past what they REALLY stand for. I really loved his point and I think you’re making the same one.
I consider myself liberal and agree pretty enthusiastically with most “liberal ideals.” However, it’s not because the Democratic party said so. I have really tried hard to think critically about a lot of issues and come to my own conclusions. I think that’s a really important aspect of politics.
Reply
March 17th, 2011 on 1:04 pm
This is something that totally annoys me. Just because something is a “democratic” idea, it isn’t a good idea to republicans. Or vice versa. We will never solve our nation’s problems if we act like this.
It took me forever to convince some of my family that the issue of earth conservation was not just because Al Gore is worried about Global Warming… the issue is that we have a planet we are destroying and we need to take care of it!
Reply
Meg Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 1:08 pm
My husband did rape crisis work where he went door to door collecting donations for a rape crisis hotline. He went to one door and gave the little speech and the guy said “I’m not interested in helping your Democrat agenda!” and slammed the door in his face. It’s like..really sir? Because rape only happens to Democrats and not across genders and all socioeconomic lines? What an ignorant fool.
Reply
March 17th, 2011 on 1:12 pm
Wow, are people really being this civil in a political discussion??? Or are you just deleting rude comments like mad? Either way I’m impressed.
Reply
March 17th, 2011 on 1:27 pm
Very thoughtful, and unfortunately true. It is sad that “doing the right thing” has to be debated in politics.
Nice post, Jenna. I think it makes a great point without being offensive at all. I love your idea about bringing your own dishware. I do that now, and wish others would join in!!!
Reply
March 17th, 2011 on 2:23 pm
Well said Jenna.
Imagine what a different country we’d be living in if everyone voted for issues and not political parties.
Reply
March 17th, 2011 on 2:23 pm
great post, Jenna. This confirms that although we may differ on many things, you are smart, well researched and thoughtful! Super impressed with the quality of the discussion here as well.
Reply
March 17th, 2011 on 3:25 pm
Great post Jenna! As you know I married and LDS, while I’m not one myself, so politically he leans more conservative than me. While I don’t call myself Democrat, the hubs calls himself Republican and typically votes Republican without really looking at the issues on hand. Thankfully, he’s slowly changing that, since I like to DISCUSS NOT ARGUE politics. However when it comes to mother earth/nature/over consumption, we pretty much share the same philosophy.
One thing, I never understood when it comes to Politics, why it is always off limits, except for politicians to discuss. It’s soo weird, living in the US I’ve always heard: “Politics shouldn’t be discussed at the dinner table…bl, blah, blah stuff” Why not?!
Can’t people discuss politics in a civil matter and have a discussion with family member or friends with out having to staunchly defend the ideology of the Republican or Democratic Party. For some reason some folds who are passionate about their party are unwilling to compromise and don’t see that at times it can be beneficial.
From my experience with my husband most people have the notion that you have to defend your political party, whenever Politics are brought up. Instead of having an open dialog/discussion. Unfortunately, I feel most people feel that political issues are black&white. Therefore are unwilling to compromise. It’s soo ingrained into them, that seeing otherwise is nearly impossible.
Reply
Nina Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 3:37 pm
Excuse the many typos. I’m at work and had rush my comment before my supervisor came back from the restroom.
Reply
March 17th, 2011 on 3:35 pm
Great post – I agree completely. I have a pretty big example of this that I’ll never forget…there was a local election just a few days after I turned 18, and my dad asked me if I was planning on voting in it. I explained that I really wasn’t at all up to date on who was running and what any of the issues were, so I didn’t really feel qualified to vote. His response? “Oh, I always just go down the line and vote Republican for everything.”
I was pretty shocked and still am – I think it’s our responsibility as citizens to actually look into the issues that are being voted on and make educated decisions based on what we truly believe – not on what party we affiliate ourselves with.
Reply
March 17th, 2011 on 3:51 pm
People do get nuts on both ends. I registered one party, often vote another an wonder why we are so polarized. In the end aren’t we all somewhere in the middle?
REALLY when you look at the proclaimed platforms of both parties some of their ideal contradict each other.
On being green-
In Hawaii stores no longer have plastic bags. So either you get paper or buy your own reusable which I loved.
I have tried the energy efficient supposed to last for a decade light bulbs…they suck. So if anyone knows good ones, let me know.
♥ Celina
Reply
March 17th, 2011 on 4:02 pm
Preach it sister!
I am a Democrat, pretty through and through. But I’ve encountered several people in my life who consider themselves conservative and I’ve noticed that we aren’t always so different. Some Republicans or conservatives are really concerned with conserving….money, the earth, natural resources. The farmer we buy our grass-fed beef and free range chicken and eggs from is very conservative, but concentrates a lot of his efforts on preserving the wild grasslands on his farm, the heritage breeds of animals he raises, and controlling what he is able to control on his own. I really, really like that. I tried to compost our natural waste but sadly, composting in our condo isn’t a great idea. This is something both I and my conservative farmer find really important.
Other Republicans I know aren’t concerned with conserving the Earth or conserving anything except their tax dollars. Some poorer Democrats may milk the welfare system. Some wealthy Republicans may skirt the tax system because they can. There are wide ranges in the spectrum with both parties. What’s upsetting is that our officials seem to only understand what the loudest groups are saying!
Just the other day I heard an interview with a House Republican who said that he is absolutely not convinced that global climate change is real and even if it were, there’s no way he’d ever believe it was caused by humans. Just like taking a stand and getting plasticware back, this is all for show to prove that they’re not at all like Democrats. You wouldn’t want to be painted as the enemy!
Both parties are so polarized it’s disgusting. They’re fighting over plasticware. Meanwhile Monsanto continues to claim ownership over more and more farmers every day, and continues to slip GMOs into our industrial food complex. Instead of addressing these issues and how they affect farmers and the American consumer, both parties are doing their bests to NOT BE THE OTHER GUY. Bipartisanship is over and no one wants to be the guy who was willing to concede to the other side.
Reply
March 17th, 2011 on 4:35 pm
first time commenter: hear hear!! this is so true, and wonderfully put.
Reply
March 17th, 2011 on 4:53 pm
I love this post, Jenna! I agree with you completely. My husband likes listening to left-leaning pundits like Rachel Maddow, but I’ve found that I just don’t have any patience for it anymore. It just always sounds like commenters on both sides are more interested in sneering at each other’s stupidity and mocking each other’s priorities than actually finding some common ground and making any real progress on issues. I want to be much more committed to solving problems than to a party identity.
Reply
March 17th, 2011 on 5:16 pm
I just want to pount out that while replacing things with more effecient things is a good idea (when the old is worn out) it does NOT make sense to replace toilets that are working or cars that are working, etc. It takes MUCH more energy to make these new items. Also maybe some people don’t want to spend thousands of dollars on replacing items that work perfectly. Tax payers are the ones who pay for these items NOT the Dem and not the Republicans!
Reply
March 17th, 2011 on 5:24 pm
I love this post so much that I wish you would write about politics more! Jenna for President! Really though- I couldn’t agree more. I feel like our government spends all it’s time trying to win elections, and no time actually doing anything. I know that’s probably a gross over-statement, but it’s my feeling. The downfall of a two party system…
Reply
March 17th, 2011 on 7:57 pm
I love this post! You seem to have such a clear-headed approach to politics, I only wish more people had it, too! I completely agree that it’s just plain stupid to disagree with an idea just because the other person either thought of it/supports it. Makes zero sense.
I tend more towards the democratic side of things, myself, but my husband (who is fiscally conservative but doesn’t identify as republican) has really taught me a lot about viewpoints I used to not really consider. It really is all about educating yourself and being informed.
I don’t want to stir up any trouble, but a post way earlier made me want to say this. I am pro-choice and it bothers me when I hear people make comments about “us” killing/murdering millions of babies. It simply isn’t true. No one wants abortions to happen. We are all trying to work towards this occuring as little as possible. What needs to happen is giving people (esp. women) the tools to prevent unwanted children and plan their families. The reason I don’t want to make abortion illegal is because there are incredibly unfortunate circumstances where it IS the only option. Even to women who wanted the child to begin with.
….And stepping off my soapbox before I get into trouble….
Reply
Marissa C Reply:
March 18th, 2011 at 12:28 am
This is a tangent, but I agree with you and take issue with what you said at the same time. Yes, there are lots of incredibly unfortunate circumstances where abortion may seem like the only viable option (as a Catholic, I do not believe this, but I understand where you are coming from).
However, you cant brush around the fact that it still ends in a dead baby and millions of abortions have been performed. And most of the time it is not a life or death situation.
Just as many pro-lifers don’t look past the birth of the baby, I feel like many pro-choice people focus on the “right” of the mother to abort her baby and oppose any restriction, whether or not it might save both.
Reply
Megan Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 8:49 pm
I don’t oppose restrictions for non-life-threatening abortions. But I have read about some cases where the mother’s life wasn’t at risk, but the baby’s life was beyond saving. But because of certain restrictions, the mothers in those cases couldn’t do anything to remedy the situation which then put their lives in danger.
Something my husband has mentioned to me recently is that pro-life and pro-choice people seem to be arguing about two different things. Pro-life is arguing that it’s wrong to kill babies and pro-choice is arguing the right of the mother like you had mentioned. I guess I see it as the right of the mother, but then it would also be her cross to bear, not anyone else’s.
Reply
March 17th, 2011 on 8:05 pm
I am dying to comment on this post, but am having difficulty knowing exactly how to go about it as I don’t want to sound rude and sometimes I get too passionate. But here I go… First, I agree with Kendra. Why replace something that is not broken? While being more energy efficient and environmental friendly is important, now is not necessarly the time to upgrade. Secondly, I don’t know if I agree with the “not nearly as often as Republicans” comment. Politics is a hobby of mine and I know a lot of people from both sides of the party. Some know why they believe what they do on certain issues and some don’t whatsoever. Some vote based on what the politicians stand for and represent and some vote for who they are told to vote for. I think it is a big problem for both sides. And it could potentially only get worse as things get more polarized. Some of the worst at voting for or against things based on party affiliation are politicians themeslves. But truth be told, we haven’t ever stopped them from doing that. No Dem, who is elected by Dem votes, would vote for a Republican bill if it would harm his chances of being reelected. So sad. But so true. It is why it is so important for people to be knowledgeable on politics and to know what their elected officials are doing in office. Change starts with us.
The county I live in is known for its cazy politics(crazy on a county level at least). But it is a prime example of this problem. Very few on the board ever stand up for what is right for the county and its citizens. They vote along party lines instead. And truth be told, no matter who is elected, and whether it is a majority Dems or Republicans, it happens every time a new board is elected. So half of the good that could get done, doesn’t get done.
I have really said nothing important and nothing that hasn’t already been said, but I just wanted to point out that it is a epidemic on all sides.
Reply
March 17th, 2011 on 9:50 pm
Jenna, I’ve been reading you since your weddingbee days and have never commented on one of your posts. I don’t always agree with everything you write and you and I are very different people. I went to law school, My husband and I are not religious, I am very career-focused and plan to continue working once we have a kid (which most likely won’t be until I’m 30). But I totally agree with you on some things. I am loving the real food movement and my husband and I have eliminated almost everything with fake ingredients we can’t pronounce.
And my husband works on the Hill (not for a member or a committee but in a non-partisan position) and he was very upset when they eliminated the utensils and containers and went back to styrafoam. It just seemed so wasteful- I think they just got rid of existing inventory to make a point- and just such a jab at “the other party” instead of a rational decision.
Reply
Jenna Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 10:29 pm
I hadn’t considered that they have an existing supply but stopped using it just to “make a point”. If that’s the case, then I’m even more frustrated!
Reply
March 17th, 2011 on 10:41 pm
In college, I volunteered for campaigns and was really “into” politics and trying to affect change. But, sad but true, it’s totally pointless. Both parties are so busy pandering to their base in their attempts to get re-elected, that they do crazy things like eliminate “going green” programs for no reason. I’m sure 90% of the Republicans on the Hill could, personally, care less and are happy to help the environment – but they don’t their constituents to think they are bending to the Democrats, so they put up a stink. Democrats do the same things – they would hate to look too liberal so they never fight too hard on anything lest they be accused of that. It’s so disheartening to think we are just stuck in this pattern of electing (excuse the name-calling) wimps who just want to get re-elected.
Which is why, although I am a die-hard, bleeding heart liberal, I can at least give the “Tea Party” some respect for their campaigning. They would rather lose the election voting for their candidate than win by voting for the lesser of two evils.
Reply
March 18th, 2011 on 12:01 am
I sorta feel bad for your facebook friend…and not because of what he said but because a) you called him a pig head. b) you made some HUGE assumptions about him and c) You blew his comment WAY OUT OF PORPORTION. Although, now that I think about it he probably got the exact reaction he was looking for so now joke’s on you! and No i’m not a republican.
Reply
Virginia Reply:
March 18th, 2011 at 5:37 am
“Pig head” is not what I would have chosen, for sure. Maybe “unfunny fool stuck in second grade” or possibly “idiot who didn’t mature past eleven, when being edgy was sooo cool”.
So he was lucky he was called “pig head” instead.
It’s not even about conservationism or party politics. This person seens a whole bunch of people making a concerted effort to make a difference, working towards something they believe in, that is not affecting him in any way, and he still decides to spit on it. I guess ignoring it and not participating wasn’t enough. No, he also had to counteract their efforts. HA HA, aren’t you edgy.
Reply
March 18th, 2011 on 2:11 am
Ive encountered something similar to this, but slightly different in my short time as a voter (2 elections). Around the time of the Australian federal election last year I started noticing an expectation that was placed upon me. I was really suprised by it because Id only voted in one State election previously, and I wasn’t really into politics at all. In Australia we have Liberal and Labor, and a few smaller parties. I found that Christians expect other Christians to vote Liberal. I suppose because they oppose gay marriage and abortion etc more than Labor does. I found it appalling that I was expected to vote Liberal just because of my religion! The church minister would do sermons on ‘educating so you can make your own choice’ pfft… He handed out pamphlets that had issues down one side, the parties along the top and ticks for who complied with Christian ideals… Guess who had the most ticks? Also, on facebook fellow christians would post videos about Labor or the greens ideas and what they want to do if they get in, and the videos would have foreboding music… it was just pathetic. I feel kind of sorry for the Christians who vote Liberal their whole life without thinking about current events and who would be best to lead NOW. I love being a swing voter.
Anyway, I just thought Id bring up this aspect of it too.
Reply
March 18th, 2011 on 8:30 am
I read this blog but don’t usually comment on blogs. But I felt compelled to comment on this topic because I have a totally different read on it than Jenna does.
I think that some politicians are against sustainability because they receive money from companies that profit from the sale, and disposal of, environmentally unsustainable products. For example, the business that make styrofoam and the plastic that is used to make plastic silverware, or makers of incandescent light bulbs. There is a lot of money being made on these products precisely because the products need to be constantly replaced.
Even though instituting sustainability practices would hurt these businesses in the short term, in the long term most people recognized that the cost for everyone of using disposable products is high. Rather than argue that it’s bad for business, politicians seem to be making an argument that sustainability is a drag, it’s not fun, it’s (as Jenna says) something only Democrats are interested in. By making this argument, the politicians who are supported by the unsustainable businesses can appeal to other people, by playing up (or manipulating) people’s impulses to not want to make sacrifices. They are saying, “the Democrats want you to make sacrifices, but if you vote for us we won’t make you change what you buy or take public transportation instead of driving.”
Where I disagree with this post is the assumption that it is political opinions that are behind the disagreement about whether to adopt sustainable practices. I think that is too generous to the politicians. I think it is big money that is behind it. I think the politicians are doing their job of finding any argument that they can convince their constituents in of in order to further the interests of their donors. And I think that it’s much uglier than democrat vs. republican arguments, because I think it’s big money vs. the best interest of everyone on the planet.
Reply
LifeOnMulberry Reply:
March 18th, 2011 at 1:35 pm
Re: “I think the politicians are doing their job of finding any argument that they can convince their constituents in of in order to further the interests of their donors. And I think that it’s much uglier than democrat vs. republican arguments, because I think it’s big money vs. the best interest of everyone on the planet.”
Heartbreak city – but so true. Frustrating case of follow-the-money and the importance of campaign contribution and lobbyist laws, limitations, and transparency.
Reply
March 18th, 2011 on 10:14 am
I haven’t had a chance to read all of the comments so hopefully I’m not repeating what someone else has said…
Have you seen that Barry Levinson documentary Poliworld? It’s pretty interesting in itself but somewhere in the first 30 or 40 minutes there is a bit of a discussion about how TV, and specifically the 24 hour news channels, has changed the way America (and the World, really) sees and discusses politics.
Essentially they were saying that when TV started the news was there as a public service and then through commercials and sponsorship the news became profitable. When 24 hour news stations began the news was then competing for ratings just like any other show in primetime. So, they figured out that conflict and drama (people/pundits arguing and never conceding to the other side’s point) was the best way to get ratings. So now almost all of the “news” shows are more scripted dramas and more for “entertainment” purposes than simply providing information as a public service.
When you look at that and realize how, like it or not, we all absorb at least some of those talking points (left and right alike) it’s no wonder that we have been somewhat programmed to dig in our heels and never compromise. Hopefully our generation who prefers to get their news from the internet and other non-TV outlets will start to shift the pendulum back the other way….
Reply
LifeOnMulberry Reply:
March 18th, 2011 at 1:39 pm
Ugh! Sounds like the NPR debate going on in Congress RIGHT NOW!
Reply
March 18th, 2011 on 11:14 am
As a restaurant owner, I can tell you that the biodegradable products are easily double ( usually more) than the price of foam. Even the recyclable plastic containers are significantly more. We tried to switch to them, but in this economy every penny counts! Sure, half a Million dollars doesnt seem like a lot compared to other government spending. There is a saying in the restaurant industry that it isn’t the big mistake you make that hurts your bottom line, it is all the small ones added up. So over portioning salmon by an ounce everyday is worse than that one time I had to throw out all the salmon because I dropped it on the floor.
Reply
March 18th, 2011 on 11:26 am
I work for an engineering consulting company, so a large part of our business involves protecting the environment, and sustainability. We switched about 2 years ago to all re-usable (read: “real,” metal and ceramic) plates, mugs, and utensils. I already used my own mug and water glass, but this change meant no paper plates or plastic utensils, which means sharing, washing and replenishing the cupboards. I can tell you that many MANY people feel “too important” to wash their own coffee mug or load plates in the dishwasher. However, many other planet-loving people have pitched in and the whole system works really well. I’ve been tempted before to think “how much does this really affect the environment?”–you know, just my little part…like I have only used “real” plates and cups at home, we recycle, etc. But every little bit DOES count. A lot! All I need to do is see the amount of mugs in my office dishwasher every day to know that!
Reply
March 18th, 2011 on 12:15 pm
Great post! I feel the same way. I can’t characterize myself politically because I agree with both sides on different issues. As far as the environment goes, I think some right-wingers react that way because they see some people on the left turning the environment and the green movement into practically a religion and then they don’t want anything to do with it. Personally I try not to worry about anyone else and just do what I think is right.
Reply
J Reply:
March 19th, 2011 at 4:43 pm
I hear this argument about environmentalism becoming a religion lot and I just don’t see that happening. (I promise I’m not picking on/attacking/etc-ing you, this is just the first reference I caught to this idea in this particular discussion! I’m just interested in using this as a jumping-off point.)
I live in Boston, Massachusetts and am a graduate student in the humanities, so my day to day life is like lefty central. My husband and I are both very environmentally conscious and try to diligently incorporate that ethos into our day to day lives. (He’s agnostic and I’m Catholic, fwiw.) I’ve been involved with green issues here in New England as well as in Appalachia, and this argument that environmentalism is a false god or an idol or something gets brought up a lot. But it always is mentioned from outside of the environmental movement. Standing on the inside, I’ve NEVER EVER EVER seen this phenomenon. EVER. I just don’t even know where people are getting it from because it is so detached from the reality I see day in and day out.
I am so gladdened and encouraged by the increasing visibility and activity of the creation care movement in conservative Christian circles. There is a place for environmentalism in a Christian lifestyle; what’s more, I’d be bold enough to argue that it’s a necessary part and the growth of creation care ministries among evangelical Christians demonstrates that I’m not alone in some lefty liberal bubble about this.
Reply
Kathleen Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 6:32 pm
I just want to reiterate that I myself don’t share this view of environmentalism being a religion, but it’s something that I’ve heard. I’ve never seen it myself either!
Reply
J Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 8:31 pm
Gah! It is so frustrating! It’s like people are just looking for an excuse to… I don’t know… hate trees or something.
One of my favorite things about environmentalism is how it’s a perfect place for people of all religious persuasions to get together and work toward a shared goal. I love when all the parts of my life come together like that!
Reply