Posted on

Beyond the Immediate

I’ll occasionally get into a discussion about how much more it costs for compact fluorescent lamps. Or solar. Or electric cars. Or extra insulation in our homes. Or Fair Trade chocolate and coffee (life-essentials). And while it often can become an interesting discussion, it can also become frustrating. Frustrating because we don’t seem to be able to look beyond the immediate at the long-term benefits (or even the long-term costs) of some of these things.

Take, for example, the shoes pictured in this post. These are my shoes. I paid $180 for them. And that made me stop, think, agonize even. To the point I almost didn’t buy them. But they had some features that tipped me beyond the immediate. First, they are made in the USA. And partly because of that, they cost more (overseas slave labor is even cheaper than minimum wage). But they only cost more initially. You see, I bought them in 2005. And for the last six plus years, they have pretty much been my only pair of dress shoes. Which means I wear them every day to work and Sundays to church and to “dress up” events. I also walk a lot. And they’re VERY comfortable.

One of the other benefits to these shoes is the warranty. The heels recently wore down enough (after six years of daily walking) that I took them in for new heels. But because of the warranty, I got all new soles. For $20. Total. The uppers are still in excellent shape (high quality leather, no doubt). So I have shoes that are probably going to last at least another six years. For a total cost of about $200 (plus shoe laces). That will be less than $17 per year for shoes. I could have bought $50 shoes that last a couple of years (been there before) and realistically ended up paying 50% more for my shoes. Do you see where this is going?

Compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) generally last between 6 and 15 times as long as an incandescent lamp. They usually cost $3 to $6 each compared to $1 or so for an incandescent. They also put out the same amount of light as a 60 watt lamp with about 11 watts. So over the life of the lamp, while they initially cost a bit less or at worst about the same, because they last longer it’s at least a push. But factor in the savings in electricity and you have some real dollar savings as well as the need for fewer electric generating plants (regardless of whether or not they’re hydro, coal or nuclear). Do you see where this is going?

Extra insulation in our homes and air sealing (a fancy term for caulking the cracks) can reduce our heating and energy bills in our homes by a huge percentage. In fact, only 15% of the cost of a home is the initial cost to build or buy it. Fully 85% of the cost of that home is in the operations and maintenance of that home. Perspective. All-electric cars, depending on the electric costs in your locality, get the equivalent of over 100 mpg (or the equivalent of gas for 75¢ a gallon. Use whichever comparison works for you). So the initial cost is higher, but the operating costs for fuel and maintenance (which is almost nil) far offset that initial investment. Do you see where this is going?

But many people I know have the perspective only of the immediate. And when government tries to help us get past that limited perspective (through regulations on gas mileage for cars, energy codes for homes, light bulb efficiency standards, etc), we lament that our government is becoming socialist and we have Presidential candidates saying that “Let me tell you, President Bachmann will allow you to buy any light bulb you want in the United States of America.” I would only hope Ms. Bachmann could at some point see beyond the immediate if she’s actually tapped to lead our country.

While I love our country and appreciate the Constitutional freedoms we have, I don’t think we should have zero regulation (aka Anarchy, or a few steps beyond Libertarian or Tea Party views). I see the value in things like the speed limits on our roads. And laws against drunk driving. I also see the value in government regulations when we as individuals can’t or won’t choose to see beyond the immediate. When we get absorbed in our selfishness and only look out for ourselves and not our society and culture as a whole, we miss the point.

We have to look beyond the immediate and beyond our own individual self-interests to our entire society. And we have to elect people to represent those values and not the knee-jerk ideas that left to our own, unfettered, unregulated devices, we will always make the right choice. We won’t. If we always took a vote on every decision that needed to be made, most of us would either not vote at all or we’d vote emotion and not intellect. Call me un-American if you want, but I believe we would be far better off electing people to make decisions that benefit all of us, rather than just a few, even if that decision ends up costing me money or time or inconvenience.

When Jesus said “love your neighbor” I think it is safe to say that such actions will sometimes be uncomfortable or inconvenient and will always cost me something.

Posted on

An Open Letter to Evangelicals

I’ve been watching the political fray lately and, especially the Republican race for the Presidential nomination. To start out this post, let me say I voted for Obama in 2008. In fact, I left the Republican Party so I could vote for him in my state’s primary and already have decided to vote for him in 2012. So now that I have that out on the table, hopefully those of you who might vehemently disagree with this stance will at least hear me out.

I follow Jesus. I’ve followed his teachings for the majority of my life and am continually trying to learn more about how to live the way Jesus lived and what that means to me, here and now, in a practical, real way. What has prompted this open letter to my evangelical friends is a headline in today’s news that reads “Undecided Iowa Evangelicals Pray For an Answer.” A church pastor said “I’m just really confused, I just don’t know at this point who is the best one to support.”

I suggest considering our incumbent President, Barack Obama.

Obama’s book, “The Audacity of Hope” is a good introduction to the man who is our 44th President. It chronicles his history, family life, struggles and his decision to follow Jesus. That part is clear. That part is what intrigued me back in early 2008. What has also intrigued me (although in a negative way) has been the continual, unrelenting opposition to the man the majority of us chose to lead our country amid a time of unparalleled economic woes. And, I might remind us, woes decades in the making that Obama inherited.

But even more intriguing than all that has been Obama’s steady, consistent holding to his Christian beliefs. Amid all the rumors and lies about doing away with the Day of Prayer or the White House Christmas Tree or even, as one Republican candidate for President recently said in a campaign ad, “his war on religion,” Obama has held steady. His faith in Jesus is still present. He doesn’t wear it on his sleeve, but it’s there.

But what also really bothers me is the thought that in order to truly be a follower of Jesus, you have to subscribe to a set of conservative beliefs of not raising taxes under any circumstances or that abortion and gay marriage are the litmus test of fitness to lead our country. And that is where I completely disagree with my conservative Evangelical Republican friends.

First is the conservative idea that seems to equate small government and low taxes with spiritual correctness. You know, I’m really sorry, but I don’t make that connect. Anywhere. I understand the concept of small government and low taxes. And it’s fine to hold that as a view. I happen to believe differently about that. But in that belief, I have had people question my faith as being somehow messed up because I hold a different view of our government’s role. One person even told me there would be no Democrats in Heaven.

Really?

I have another friend who once said that conservative Republicans have hijacked Christianity. And I’m starting to believe that.

Evangelicalism in it’s original form, dating back to the 1700s has, as its key elements, a personal decision to follow Jesus, a high regard for the authority of the Bible, an emphasis on the death and resurrection of Jesus and an active expression of sharing this gospel, or “good news.”

Noticeably missing from those four key points is any mention of politics (conservative or liberal), abortion or homosexuality. In fact, Jesus made no recorded comments about abortion or homosexuality. Now think for a minute about that and put it in context. Jesus lived in the Roman-occupied area in and around Jerusalem. Roman culture regularly and openly practiced both abortion and homosexuality. So I have to ask if those two beliefs were a litmus test for anything, why didn’t he say anything about them?

Instead, Jesus talked about loving God and loving your neighbor (and your enemy). He talked about caring for the poor and the disadvantaged and the widows and the orphans. The marginalized people in society. And when I get to this point, I get the response that “it isn’t the government’s place to do that, it’s ours.” Maybe. But we aren’t doing it. At least not well enough. Even with all the private philanthropy, faith-based aid and government assistance, there are still people in our country who won’t be able to eat today.

One in nine verses in the New Testament (2,100 verses in the entire Bible) relate to our care for the poor and disadvantaged. If the scriptures are inspired by God, and he gives that much air time to one topic, wouldn’t we want to elect a President who held to those beliefs also?

I do.

Posted on

#OWS, Part 2

I promised to outline some of my opinions in this second part of OWS. So, here they are.

I ended my last post talking about how we spend so much time dismissing others’ opinions, that we don’t listen. Our culture has lost the art of listening. We post diatribes on our Facebook page or letters to the editor or bumper stickers and billboards without really spending time on what that other person was trying to say or listening to responses. We get focused on our own single-minded track that we don’t really have a conversation.

Webster defines conversation as the “oral exchange of sentiments, observations, opinions, or ideas.” There are a couple of points I want to make here. First, it’s oral. True conversation doesn’t happen by competing online posts or signs or billboards. It is oral. Oral communication is best achieved face-to-face. In person. Where you can see the facial expressions, the tone of voice, all the nuances of real, true, two-way conversation.

The other point about conversation is it involves opinions and ideas. None of us has the solution nailed. Doesn’t matter what the topic, what the opinion, there’s always another perspective. That’s not to say there aren’t some absolutes in life. Facts. Things like Abraham Lincoln did actually exist and was actually President of the United States. What it means is when it comes to the issues brought up by Occupy (or anyone else, for that matter), there are some valid points. Social equity, fairness, justice, etc. But what I find is many people dismiss the topics without listening. And I wonder if they aren’t listening because the messenger doesn’t look and dress like they do or because the topic maybe hits just a little too close to home. The root word of conversation is from the Latin conversari, which means “to associate with” and is frequentive (repeated or intense action) of convertere “to turn around.”

True conversation involves an exchange of opinions (exchange is multi-directional) in a context of associating with another with the ability to turn around. In other words, as we have a conversation, I might need to change my opinion. I might actually learn something from you. And you from me.

I serve on the Eugene Planning Commission. And I have to say what I appreciate most about the Commissioners is they listen. Our meetings are truly a conversation. And with that interchange of ideas, thoughts, opinions, I believe we have made some very thoughtful decisions. And I think those decisions will ultimately achieve a long-term benefit to our community. I personally met with two City Planning staff yesterday about a topic currently before the Commission with an idea, a thought, that I had that was a bit different from what they presented. And in that conversation, they heard my reasons, I heard theirs and we ended up with an idea, a hybrid, that I believe will address all the concerns that are on the table. But only because we had a conversation and we listened.

The other major point I wanted to make was how so often by NOT engaging in true conversation, we miss the point altogether.

If you regularly follow my posts, you know I follow Jesus. His life, his teachings. And what I found throughout the writings about him is that even people in the first century missed the point and didn’t engage in true conversation. People would ask him his opinion (“Teacher, what about this…?”) and more often than not, Jesus would respond by asking them “What do you think? How do you see it?” Conversation. And even when they would ask questions like “Who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”, Jesus’ response basically was “Neither. You’re missing the point.”

Back to Occupy. The newspaper this morning reported on the total monetary costs Occupy Eugene has cost the City. And I guarantee the banter now will be about how much money we’re spending on “these homeless hippies destroying the lawn.” And when we do, we will have missed the point.

Eugene’s Mayor, Kitty Piercy, recently communicated “OE supporters see the Washington Jefferson camp as way to not just talk about the inequities in this country but to actually do something about them. They should tell you what they are trying to do and how its going in their own words.” Hmmm. Sounds like our Mayor is encouraging us to listen. To engage in actual conversation.

So who sinned? Occupy Eugene for destroying the lawn? Or the City for not booting them out?

Neither. We’ve missed the point.

Posted on

#OWS, Part 1

Occupy Wall Street. #OWS. Just those three words (or letters) stirs an incredible amount of emotion in people these days. I recently shared a picture showing the contrasts (and similarities) of legal and illegal, mob and normal on my Facebook page.

As you all know, I’m one who likes to “stir the pot” and get a good discussion going. This one was no exception. In just two days, it generated almost 60 comments. When a post hits 50, I deem it “worthy” of a blog post here. So here I go.

The picture generating the discussion showed people camping in tents outside of a Best Buy (“legal”) and people camping in tents in an occupy area (“illegal”). Below those pictures were two more, one of occupy protesters holding signs (“mob”) and Black Friday people crowding a store (“normal”). I thought it was an interesting perspective. And that set off a whole range of responses. Responses ranging from emotional to thoughtful.

But I think it showed that we want simple answers to complex issues. And how once something becomes a part of our culture, we accept it as “normal” while vilifying anything that rubs against the grain. So Black Friday, a generally-accepted part of our culture, with it’s isolated incidents of pepper-spraying, robbing, fights and looting amidst the accepted culture of consumerism is deemed “legal” and “normal.” Yet OWS, with it’s isolated incidents of pepper-spraying, robbing, fights and looting, rubbing against the grain of our social mores, challenging our greed and consumerist mentality, is deemed “illegal” and a “mob.”

So we, on the one hand, make statements like “OWS hasn’t ever articulated what they’re against,” and on the other, “spending money on Black Friday helps our economy.” In doing so, we miss the point. As one of my friends so aptly said in one post, “I’m not for or against OWS, but I am for nuanced conversations that spur actual change in our political and economic systems. The REAL issues can not simply be dismissed.”

The point is we spend so much of our time dismissing others’ opinions, that we don’t listen. We don’t ever have a true conversation. We need those “nuanced conversations” that will actually bring about change. I think everyone would agree our system is screwed up. But few of us are willing to consider any kind of compromise on how to fix it. Most of us have an “it’s my way or the highway” attitude. Most of us get sucked into the popular media that conveys what we WANT to believe rather than taking the time to find out what is REALLY going on. We don’t do that, I think, because deep down, we’re afraid our current opinion might be wrong. And if we find out it is wrong, we are then faced with a decision: maintaining a flawed idea or concept regardless of the facts, or changing our opinion and admitting we were mistaken. None of us likes that. “Don’t confuse me with the facts, my mind’s made up” becomes our mantra.

Until we can listen to each other (really listen), we won’t accomplish anything. So now that I’ve laid the ground-work, I’ll outline some of my thoughts and ideas and opinions (and how this relates to living a simple, sustainable lifestyle) in: “#OWS, Part 2.”

Posted on

Egan Warming Centers and Mary S. [repost]

Editor’s Note: I posted this almost a year ago today. The Egan Warming Centers will be activated for the first time this year tonight, November 18. I received such positive feedback from the original post, I thought it warranted a repeat. I’ve not seen Mary S. since that cold November evening in 2010, but here is her story again:
——————————————————–
The other day, I saw a post on my Facebook News Feed about the Egan Warming Center. I’ve lived here in Eugene for most of my life and had never heard of the Warming Center. Administered by St. Vincent dePaul, the Egan Warming Center’s mission is to provide homeless people in Lane County a place to sleep indoors when temperatures drop to 28º or below between November 15 and March 31. Several churches in our area open their facilities for people to sleep when it gets cold. So I reposted the link on my Facebook and said, “this is worth getting the word out.” Then I went about the rest of my day.

Little did I know that on my way home that night (I had a late meeting downtown and was catching the late bus), a lady who appeared to be homeless got on the bus wanting to know where a particular church was. It happened to be one of the churches that host the homeless on cold nights.

I told her it was a couple of stops after my stop, and a young couple on the bus also said they were headed there, too. She was grateful for the help and caring and we struck up a conversation. Actually, it was more I got to listen to her story for the 15 minutes until my stop. About halfway into the conversation I said, “My name’s Bill, what’s yours?” and she said “I’m Mary S.” and we shook hands.

It’s interesting how it’s easy to judge someone by their looks yet when you talk to them (I did get a few words in), you find they have a lot on the ball. Mary S. had thin hair, deep furrows on her perfectly-round face and meticulously-applied pink lipstick. Yet her lipstick wasn’t gaudy; it was tastefully applied.

I listened as she talked about the atrocities of shooting gray wolves, the slaughter of seals, global warming and the awfulness of animal farming and how selfishness was really at the root of it all. It was a fascinating time. She had some very deep insights into this world and life in general. It looked like she had most, if not all, of her possessions in the two plastic grocery bags she carried with her.

And it made me realize just how fortunate I am. As I came home to my warm house, hot mocha and electric blanket, I thought of Mary S. and the wonderful volunteers who will spend all night giving her, the other young couple on the bus and who knows how many others the ability to have a warm, dry place to sleep.

And it made me think how the simple act of riding the bus goes way deeper than just reducing my carbon footprint and living a simpler, sustainable lifestyle; it’s an opportunity to meet people you wouldn’t normally talk with. And that can open up some amazing conversations and friendships.

By reducing my carbon footprint, I think I just increased my heart footprint.

Posted on

Transportation Options Redux

A while back, I did a series on transportation options. I recently stirred the pot (as I’m wont to do) on Facebook and that discussion generated enough activity to warrant another post here.

What got this discussion going was an observation that the new proposed bus rapid transit line (EmX) in Eugene would result in approximately the same number of bus trips on the road as currently exist. But it would end up being one bus every 10 to 15 minutes instead of four bus routes running every half hour. And it has proven to increase ridership. Having ridden both the regular bus lines and the EmX, it seemed to me to be much more efficient and convenient than the system that currently is in place.

This, of course, generated a flurry of comments and opinions. I do have a group of Facebook friends with widely differing views on many topics, even this one. I enjoy this, because it generates lively discussions and topics to write about here.

I’m also going to make my comments here in the framework of the triple bottom line. The TBL concept is one that, I believe, we can apply to most any topic, especially one related to transportation. And it’s an easy format for me to use. So I will talk about my opinions related to the EmX in the context of economy, environment, and equity.

ECONOMY
Some of the comment related to the EmX discussion are centered on economy. The new line infrastructure will cost about $95 million. Yes, that’s a lot of money. About $75 million will be from Federal funding and the remainder from State funding. LTD (Lane Transit District) has already factored the additional operating costs into their budget.

It’s sometimes hard to separate thoughts and ideas into three simple categories, too. As I often say, “everything’s connected.” So there are some economic equity issues, too, but I’ll save some of those for the other sections of this post. So bear with me as I try to categorize my thoughts as best I can.

Aside from the initial costs of EmX, the impact on businesses during construction is also a concern often raised. And while I think it is a valid concern, I also believe it’s still worth it. In the current two EmX lines that have been constructed, not one business has gone out of business because of the EmX. I also have noticed that none of the current businesses along existing EmX lines have joined the “No Build” sign war currently going on along the proposed route. It would seem to me that if the EmX resulted in such an adverse impact on businesses along the routes, those businesses would be joining the fight. But they aren’t.

With all the concern about cost and the complaints about traffic congestion along the West 11th corridor, I wonder what impact simply widening the road would have and how much that would cost? Businesses would still be affected by the construction. Even more right of way would have to be obtained from private land owners. And I think we’d just end up with six lanes of congestion instead of four.

Historically, the EmX is more efficient for LTD to operate and will inevitably increase ridership. Both are win-win situations.

ENVIRONMENT
I have always been a strong proponent of protecting the environment. Transit systems are inherently more efficient and create less pollution (by about 95%) than single occupant vehicles. Simply, if you have 55 people (seated) in one bus, versus 55 vehicles, there is less air pollution, congestion, etc. And the EmX buses are hybrid electric, using less fossil fuels.

One point to make, too, is the proposed EmX route will also upgrade bike and pedestrian connections along the route. That benefit seems to get lost in all the hoopla and hyperbole. We have a decent bike route along the new EmX route, but it has some major gaps. We also have a marginal sidewalk system along the route. The proposed extension also upgrades those. Options.

EQUITY
This one is where I have the most passion. We have a society and transportation system that relies heavily on the automobile. So much so that we have effectively legislated a culture that requires you to have a car to get around. And yet we have many people (including friends of mine) who don’t own a car, can’t afford a car. And some can’t ride a bike.

When you think of this, if we have a society where a car is pretty much required to get to a job, how are those who can’t afford a car supposed to find and keep a job? And if the bus system is inefficient, requiring long waits to transfer, that keeps the husband away from his wife or the single mom away from her kids even longer (just as an illustration). We are perpetuating a cycle of social inequity and injustice.

I’ve had some say the EmX conversation is pitting the “98% against the 2%.” In reality, according to the US Census, 64% of Eugene residents commute by single occupant vehicle, 8% carpool, 5% bus, 7% walk, 11% bike and 5% work at home. EmX is trying to even out these numbers to make transportation more equitable for people.

SUMMARY
Change is often difficult. Investing in our future is also hard. It forces us to think and plan beyond the “now.” And as a culture, we’ve gotten away from that. We have developed a mindset of the immediate. From fast food to streaming movies on the internet to text messaging, we have placed unrealistic expectations on our culture. We have also become selfish. If I’m part of the 64%, why should we spend all that money on the others? After all, it doesn’t directly affect me.

But it does. There are societal issues we are facing (poverty, crime, dissent) that, I believe, are a direct result of us not considering the impacts decisions we make have on anything or anyone other than myself. And that’s where I fear we may miss the mark.

Posted on

Republican Debate and Obama’s Job Speech

A friend of mine recently challenged me via Facebook to watch the Republican debate. I responded that I would if he would, in turn, watch President Obama’s jobs speech to Congress. My friend and I generally have opposite political views, so we took each other up on the challenge. The rules were that we had to watch both in their entirety (no edited, out-of-context sound bites) and no talking-head commentaries (Hannity, Beck, Colbert or Stewart).

So I watched them both. Last night. Via YouTube and the White House website. The nice thing about the internet is you can watch whenever you want. Without commercials, commentaries, etc. And my mind has been racing enough that I woke up this morning at 4:00 am with the debates and speech going through my mind. I finally got up at 5:00 and decided to start writing my opinions and observations. My wife had come home from a meeting near the end of my watching and asked if I was truly watching both with an open mind. I said, “I think so.” I’m not completely sure about that last one because we all have our biases and our opinions that are hard to change, but I tried.

I used to be what would probably be considered a Moderate Republican. But as the Tea Party rose and the Republican Party became more and more whatever they are, I left and voted for Obama in 2008. Or, to misquote Ronald Reagan, “I didn’t leave the Republican party, they left me.” Which leads in to my thoughts on the two topics at hand, since the debate was at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California.

THE DEBATE
Tom Brokaw had a comment about the debate format that rang true throughout the evening. He said they set up very strict rules on how the debate would run and then the candidates ignore them anyway. I found that generally true throughout the debate. The most frustrating thing was when a candidate would get a question and respond with “what I REALLY want to say is…” then totally go off on a tangent.

But I don’t want to get sidetracked with that. There were plenty of questions asked and actually answered to generate a good discussion.

Obviously, the economy was the major focus, as it was with Obama’s speech, too. However, probably the single most disturbing thing in the debate that I heard was that the economy was the ONLY issue. Pushed aside, denigrated, or ignored were the other two factors of the Triple Bottom Line (TBL): the environment and social equity. This was what bothered me the most. We should drill in the Everglades (responsibly, of course) to have domestic oil to help the economy. We need to first put up a fence along the Mexican border to keep people out (and, as Ron Paul aptly warned, keep us in) because of what they are doing to the economy, then deal with immigration issues. The economy is the single issue. If the environment or equity don’t fit the immediate economic model, let our immediate economic condition control.

THE JOBS SPEECH
I’m going to tie these together, but this seemed like a good time to segue to Obama’s Jobs speech. I’ve often recently believed and said that we need to increase revenue to get out of our economic mess. Not a popular idea in some no-tax-increase circles. But you have to increase revenue to make up the difference we currently have, regardless of how many spending cuts we propose. That can happen through higher taxes (Warren Buffet and other wealthy people seem to be on board with that) and/or through removing some tax breaks that are not needed anymore (a prime example would be the huge tax breaks oil companies still receive while at the same time reaping huge profits while renewable energy receives a tenth the subsidies and is labeled as “economically unfeasible”).

I’ve also believed for some time that spending money in this time to update our failing infrastructure (roads, transportation systems, electric grid, etc) is an opportunity we should not ignore. Look at history. Lincoln and the Transcontinental Railroad. FDR and the New Deal (granted, with mixed results) and Eisenhower and the Interstate Highway System. Granted, each of these men and “programs” did more than just stimulate the economy. They set the stage for better things. The railroad opened up the West. The New Deal programs resulted in the Civilian Conservation Corps and much of our ability to enjoy our National Forests. The Interstate Highways enhanced our ability for commerce and, simply, connected our nation.

The overarching similarity in all of these (and, I believe, in the proposal the President put forth the other night) is they weren’t simply focused on one thing. When we get that type of tunnel vision, when we look solely at the economic aspect without also considering the social equity or the environment, we will have missed the boat.

CONNECTING THE TWO
I could go on a lot longer with my opinions. But this post is already long enough I’ve probably lost some people.

Our society, our culture, our lives are much richer and vibrant when we take a full and interconnected view of what we are doing. I said I was going to tie these two events together and that is it. While economic recovery in our country is important, we need to guard against single-issue tunnel vision. Too many aspects of our lives are intertwined with each other. Let’s not get so bull-headed about just the economy that we also strip away the beauty of the natural environment or the dignity of another human being.

Posted on

Best of Eugene 2011

I vote every year in the Best of Eugene balloting done by Eugene Weekly. I noticed as I was voting this year, there is a new category, “Best Blog.” Now, I want to be careful to not be accused of ballot stuffing or anything like that, but I think there are a lot of you out there (or at least a bunch… well, maybe a few) who like thesimpleHOUSE and might like to vote for my blog.

I think the prize is simply recognition in the Eugene Weekly and bragging rights around town. But my thought is if you enjoy my blog and would like to vote for me/it, I’d be delighted. Please only vote once and please only vote if you really like my blog. Don’t vote for me if you feel sorry for me. (There’s nothing to feel sorry for. I have a very blessed and happy life. If you’ve read my blog, you’d know that.)

It’s just so many of the local places I like have been recognized in past “Bests of Eugene”: Cornucopia (amazing burgers), Sweet Basil (best Thai food around), Papa’s Soul Food (best BBQ), Full City Coffee, the Willamette River Bike Path, among others, that when I saw the blog category, I thought, “Hey, I blog! Maybe I can shamelessly plug my site.” So I am.

Voting has to be done by September 25. And you have to vote in at least 10 categories (I think). So if you like thesimpleHOUSE, visit Eugene Weekly’s Best of Eugene voting link and vote for us (and at least nine others).

Thanks!

And, by the way, I took the photo for this blog a couple of years ago at the Eugene Celebration. My wife and a friend of ours were walking back to our car and I saw this couple strolling in front of the Hult Center. I grabbed my camera, took a quick shot and it turns out this has become one of my favorite pictures. And it’s a picture that captures the essence of Eugene and why I love living here so much.

Posted on

Kampuchea 2011

My wife and I recently returned from a week and a half trip to Cambodia. We went with a team from our church to work on helping to build a church in a village near Takeo as well as paint at a school near the same village.

While there, we accomplished quite a lot for 13 people, but the work was back-breaking (the building project) and tedious (the painting project.) During our few days working, we found ourselves saying things like “all we really need is a back hoe” or “an air compressor and paint sprayer would sure make this go faster and easier.”

Yet a simple comment from the missionary we know there gave me pause and created some contemplation. His remark was “Yes, but with that, you’d probably have just put about 5 or 6 Cambodian people out of work.” As I thought about that, I thought about my desire to live a simpler, more sustainable lifestyle.

Maybe all our time-saving devices aren’t necessarily the best things for us. Things like styrofoam cups are easy, disposable and cheap. But a glass cup is more durable and better for the environment (even if we have to wash it each time.) Disposable diapers are easy, but are clogging up landfills. What would happen in our society if we went back to returnable, washable milk bottles? We’d create (or restore) a whole segment of industry that we’ve lost.

And I think we’d restore some of the relational connections that we’ve lost with technology. We Facebook our friends, but how often do we actually meet them in person for coffee? Or lunch? Or dinner?

As my team in Cambodia was painting shutters, we had some very wonderful times of conversation. Talking, philosophizing, getting to know each other better. Did it take longer? Yes. Was it worth it? Absolutely.

Maybe as we live our lives, we should consider the face-to-face relational things more. Seems like it would help us politically in our Country (that’s a whole other post…) as well as with our desire to live a simpler, more sustainable lifestyle. I encourage you as you Facebook that friend, to see if they want to get together for coffee. Live. In person.

I think you’ll be glad you did.

Posted on

“Bike Traffic!”

Eighty Four. Forty five plus thirty nine equals eighty four. I’m kind of a numbers freak. So last Tuesday, as I was riding home from work, I decided to do a little counting.

Recently, Eugene, Oregon (my home town) was recognized as the number one town for bicycle commuters per capita in the country. The national average in the US is about 0.6% and Eugene has 5.6% of its workforce commuting by bike on a regular basis. I thought, I should count the number of bike riders on the paths and streets on my way home.

What brought this about was my wife and I were riding by our downtown lot (we hope to build our house and live there some day, but that’s another post) and encountered a number of bicycles at the intersection just a block away, had to stop and wait for them to pass (we had the stop sign) and when the last cyclist rode through the intersection, he raised his arms in the common bike-rider-victory-position and shouted “Bike traffic! Woo hoo!”

We chuckled at that, but then really started noticing all the bike traffic. Ever since right before the local Business Commute Challenge, I have been trying to be diligent in riding rather than driving. I’ve managed since May 10 to only drive to work three or four days and ride the rest. A total of just at 600 miles commuting and riding to meetings.

And that was what prompted my counting. I had also perceived there seemed to be more bike traffic on the paths than the streets, so I separated my counting on last Tuesday’s ride home. About the first half of my ride is along the wonderful Riverfront Bike Path here in Eugene and the second half along very bike-friendly streets.

It seemed pretty much split equally. I encountered 45 bicyclists on the bike path and 39 on the streets. Just about 50-50. That actually surprised me a bit. My perception was that the paths seemed more crowded. I guess if you add in the pedestrians, they were.

Regardless, it was a beautiful ride home. And it has only furthered my contention that everything is connected. Because I now have over 2,500 miles on my bike (saving roughly the original cost of my bike by the gas I haven’t purchased), I’ve dropped 12 pounds (2 more than I wanted, so I’m trying to eat a little more), I’m in a MUCH better frame of mind when I arrive at work and I have seen the goslings grow along the path, I hear the birds chirping and even the wind in my ears.

Sure beats listening to talk radio on my commute.

“Bike traffic. Woo hoo!”