Crystal Clear

I run across web sites here and there which really bother me. What bothers me is that these sites do not seem to be aware that if a web site is available on the Internet, it could be viewed by anyone around the world. If the site does not identify clearly they are from a particular country, or they make global claims that are really only their own country specific, such as ‘the leading provider’ of a particular service, this indicates they are probably not globally aware.

To me, it seems either ignorant or arrogant that people do not even consider there are people outside their own context.

I’ll be honest; most of the sites that bother me this way are American companies, but I’m sure they are not the only ones.

Do you write web content or even blog? Please keep in mind we live in a globally connected world now!

Comments(0)

I just read a fantastic post about food and agriculture. It was to me a fresh voice and level headed. Main points:

1. Our current food system was based on 1940s needs. We haven’t obtained the results desired then, and now the needs have changed. So, we need to rethink and come up with a new system.
2. Agricultural output is directly related currently to oil and gas input (machinery, fertilizer, transport), which is not be sustainable.
3. Consumers have become picky. “In Europe, 30% of the food grown did not appear on the shelves of the retailers because it was a funny shape or odd colour.” Biodiversity and nutrition are losers to seeds that produce food that looks appealing.

He does point out that we need to produce more food for a growing population. But that growth should not come from doing more of the same old techniques.

I’ll end with this quote:

The British consumer today has got to understand that when they make a choice, let’s say an apple – either Chinese, French or English one – they are making a political choice, a socio-economic choice, as well as an environmental one.

Comments(0)

I have a good friend who has mental illness. Mental health really is a continuum: from health to un-health / illness. We’re all somewhere along it. It isn’t really an either / or of you’re either healthy or you’re ill.

Right now he’s not on the health end. Sadly, he’s not even close. As I walk with him, I see confusion, and anger, and fantastic or strange ideas. I wonder about demonic influence. I recall that the last period of time when he was ‘well’, he really wasn’t as well as when I first met him, which was before another episode down this dark road.

He used to make funny jokes. He was a strong advocate for housing rights. He sat on many community boards and made worthwhile recommendations. He worked part time at a job he enjoyed.

I remember the good that he did, and the God who is good that lived in him. What does it mean for him that “God who began a good work in you will bring it to completion” ?

Will the past tenses of “used to make”, “was a strong advocate”, “sat on boards”, “worked” ever become present again? If I’m not sure I can truly hope for him, can I have hope for myself when I experience darkness myself?

I cry for mercy. I pray for healing. I grieve for what has been lost. I choose to hope for healing yet in this life. Which if I trust the promise, does not depend on me or other people and our actions. Lord have mercy, Christ have mercy.

Comments(0)

Modern and post-modern ways of thinking to me have always been pictured as different ways to view the world, with pros and cons of each.

In a book on adult education (Learning to Listen, Learning to Teach), Jane Vella holds up quantum concepts as a breakthrough for understanding teaching and relating. Quantum physics is relatively new science in the 20th century. Applying this to the social sciences results in theories on quantum thinking. Quantum is a measure of energy. Related to quantum ‘thinking’ is synergy, separate units are seen as part of a whole, and context becomes important.

Let’s follow some logic. Modern thinking was based on a Newtonian world with mechanics of cause and effect, and defined structures.

Now that we define the world with quantum physics, ie, the Newtonian way was incorrect, does that mean that much of modern thinking was based on a false view of how the world was to work? Can we now make value judgments against much of the modernistic worldview?

It would therefore not just a different way of looking at the world, but an incorrect way.

If so, this has further implications for the way much of our current Western society is set up.

Comments(0)

One of my colleagues was lamenting about the injustices she sees for the poor and she labeled it this way: “We develop economic systems on the backs of the poor.”

This seems to be true to me, and it also inherently unjust. But it just gets me back to my common floundering: how do we change the economic system?

I feel though by labeling it clearly, it is easier to work towards something different. By identifying the wrong, we can work to right it. As a Christian, I must be concerned with justice.

Trickle down economics are not working. The gap between rich and poor continually grows. Corruption is a factor in this. Greed disrupts the trickling. We do not seems to care for fellow people. Which is why human rights organizations and unions are needed.

Every now and then, we also see flare ups with civil uprisings which mean leaders are overthrown in the hopes to level the playing field. But those new leaders usually just replace the old with little change for the ‘little guy’.

If only there would be a minimum baseline for all people, world wide. But each country has sovereignty and would need to ‘police’ this themselves, and that is problematic.

There are many people, perhaps those who feel they are ‘enlightened’, who need to and do stand up to help others. But who decides who is enlightened, and who decides the issues to stand up on? Christians need to be part of this conversation.

Christians need to took a stand – and fight against systemic injustice at the macro level. Educate yourself and learn from others. Start making choices and advocate with others for justice. I’ve heard it said: we need to “think with our heart and feel with our brain.”

Comments(0)

I value speaking simply and plainly, and with honesty. It is hard to do in practice.

I find it harder, and yet feel it is even more important as I interact with (sometimes) competing voices in my work. We all really do have the same goals, yet since our sub goals may differ, we get to the same bigger goals on different paths.

So, sometimes we compete.

And our choice is to on the surface pretend to work together, which I would call being diplomatic, or to do the harder work of speaking simply and plainly, and to find ways to really work together.

I want to not feel like a diplomat.

Comments(0)