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 75ยข 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.

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.