10 Things Your Interior Designer Won't Tell You
Luxury Treehouses (Attention the Pete: check out the last paragraph!)
7 Extreme Home Editions
The Hottest Remodeling Trends for 2011
Is Carpet Dead?
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Because There's Nothing Cute About a Disposable Diaper
When I was a baby, my mom (and many moms like her) used cloth diapers on us kids. They were the standard flat pieces of cloth that had to be folded and pinned. But they were safer for us, and for the environment. My mom was not one of those hippy-dippy granola-crunching tree huggers in the 70's by any stretch of the imagination, but cloth diapers were economical, and it was considered an un-heard-of waste of resources and money to dress one's baby in disposable diapers. As the American culture became more fast-paced and more mothers entered the work force, disposable diapers became the norm. Convenience trumped good economics, health safety, and environmental concerns. But the truth of the matter is that about 18 billion diapers end up in the landfill every year in the U.S. alone, costing the average family with one child five to eight thousand dollars in diaper costs.
But cloth diapers are still around. They've evolved to be more convenient and comfortable for your baby, and they are still cheaper and better for the environment than disposables.
Diaper Jungle has a great article explaining the benefits of cloth diapers.
An excerpt from the article:
"According to the Sustainability Institute eighty percent of the diaperings in this nation are done with disposables. That comes to 18 BILLION diapers a year, just in the US. They require thousands of tons of plastic and hundreds of thousands of trees to manufacture. After a few hours of active service these materials are trucked away, primarily to landfills, where they sit, neatly wrapped packages of excrement, entombed or mummified, undegraded for several hundred years. The idea of a "disposable" diaper is a myth, the ramifications of which will stay with us for centuries to come. They are the 3rd largest single product in the waste stream behind newspapers and beverage containers. The urine and feces in disposable diapers enter landfills untreated, possibly contaminating the ground water supply. When you consider the unnecessary depletion of our valuable forests, the huge volume of garbage created, the toxic air and water pollution and the potential health risks to children, it is very difficult to comprehend how washing and reusing cloth diapers could ever be considered an inconvenience. They are a rewarding investment all around. A financial investment, an investment in our children’s health, and an investment in our planet."
If you have a baby or are thinking of having one, this is definitely an issue you should pay attention to. It could save you thousands of dollars, save trees, save groundwater supplies from being contaminated, and save your baby's health.
But cloth diapers are still around. They've evolved to be more convenient and comfortable for your baby, and they are still cheaper and better for the environment than disposables.
Diaper Jungle has a great article explaining the benefits of cloth diapers.
An excerpt from the article:
"According to the Sustainability Institute eighty percent of the diaperings in this nation are done with disposables. That comes to 18 BILLION diapers a year, just in the US. They require thousands of tons of plastic and hundreds of thousands of trees to manufacture. After a few hours of active service these materials are trucked away, primarily to landfills, where they sit, neatly wrapped packages of excrement, entombed or mummified, undegraded for several hundred years. The idea of a "disposable" diaper is a myth, the ramifications of which will stay with us for centuries to come. They are the 3rd largest single product in the waste stream behind newspapers and beverage containers. The urine and feces in disposable diapers enter landfills untreated, possibly contaminating the ground water supply. When you consider the unnecessary depletion of our valuable forests, the huge volume of garbage created, the toxic air and water pollution and the potential health risks to children, it is very difficult to comprehend how washing and reusing cloth diapers could ever be considered an inconvenience. They are a rewarding investment all around. A financial investment, an investment in our children’s health, and an investment in our planet."
If you have a baby or are thinking of having one, this is definitely an issue you should pay attention to. It could save you thousands of dollars, save trees, save groundwater supplies from being contaminated, and save your baby's health.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Because I Didn't Want To Double-Post
This is in response to the discussion going on over at Stupid Church People, about the church in California that gave away a car in a raffle on Easter Sunday (and made sure to advertise that fact on their local news station beforehand). I thought it was too long to post over there, especially since I had just posted. Specifically, this is in response to something JimmyBob said. I wanted to address his comments, because I think they are valid and pertinent to this discussion, and perhaps puts a fine point on where and why we disagree. If you don't know what the hell is going on, visit the SCP blog and click on the comments...or, just move along.
JimmyBob's quote:
You that are musicians "waste" a good amount of money on instruments in some people's books. The fact that we all have computers is another "waste" in other people's books. Owning movies and games or a bowling ball is an even bigger sin.
I happen to think they are good things for good uses. I guess if my heart were really concerned about the poor, I would take all my resources, sell them, and help the poor. Some have done this and I admire them. Then, why don't we all? And why don't those that have done it demand others do the same?
If pastor Trotter and Revolution Church thought it would be a good thing to give away the car and bless someone, then that is a good thing. Giving away the car then, isn't a waste. It is his motives and methods of doing so that people are questioning.
First of all, I think there's a difference between an individual's finances and a local church's. If a church decides to raise money for a bigger building, pay their pastor a huge salary, or buy a rockin' sound system for their sanctuary, that's their business....sort of. See, churches are 501(c)3's, which means they have tax-exempt status. The idea is that they are primarily there as a service and ministry for their surrounding community--they offer benefit and blessing to their community. But the reality is that a major chunk of the typical Americhurch's finance is used for things that really only benefit their members--sound systems, buildings, promotional materials, etc. The idea being that only those who are members and attenders benefit from these things that are tax-exempt. A good example of this is the building--many churches won't let you use their building unless you pay them, or, in the case of say, holding a wedding or funeral there, you have to be a member--it's not even enough that you're in the same denomination in some cases (the Pete and I went through that ordeal when we got married back in Oklahoma). I know of at least three churches that spend the majority of their money on things that only benefit members and provide absolutely NO ministries to the surrounding community (unless you showed up on Sunday morning to partake of the coffee and sound system). And our former church gave about 10% to missions (and nothing to other kinds of ministry that benefited the community). Which means when we tithed, we were really only tithing 1% of our income to the spread of the Gospel, and nothing to the poor in our own community!
If you handed me ten percent of your income and expected that it was going to help the poor (which is what the tithe is supposed to be for), wouldn't you be outraged that I took that money and spent 90% of it on myself? Maybe I threw a really great party, everyone I knew and they knew was invited (not everyone would come, though), and maybe I took some of your money (and others) to enhance our party experience by buying a hot tub and some new speakers. Sure, most of us there talk about God (heck, I'll even get up and talk about something resembling the gospel for 30 minutes or so), and I'll make sure all the music mentions God, or Jesus, or at least my desire for God or Jesus, but the people who really benefit are only the people who come. In fact, most people don't come because they find it lame and consider it a waste of their time. And the people who come are the people who gave the money to make the party so "awesome." So, those donations that we can write off on our taxes under "charity" are mostly benefiting us, the people who made the donations. Hardly a charity, and hardly real ministry (as defined by Jesus).
In contrast, I know better than to write off my new stereo, guitar, or car under "charity." I don't justify buying a new hot tub with mine and others' money by saying it will entice people to my house so I can share the gospel with them. And I don't persuade people to become my friend or God's by bribing them with "gifts." As the other preacher said, if this is what it takes, there's something wrong. And as Steve once said, "whatever you do to bring people to church, you'll have to do to KEEP them there," which means this greed, materialism, and wasteful consumption will never be addressed if it was a means for getting people to come in the first place.
Sorry if that was too long or cynical. :( Greg, over at The Parish puts it way more eloquently than I can. Read the blog entry and the comments following, to see why I don't think the car giveaway is a good idea (at least, not how it's been presented, handled and yes, promoted).
If they want to give away a car to promote their church, I wish they'd just be honest that that's what they're doing. It plays into people's sense of greed and materialism (and let's not forget LUCK!), which are not emotions a church should seek to entice in others.
JimmyBob's quote:
You that are musicians "waste" a good amount of money on instruments in some people's books. The fact that we all have computers is another "waste" in other people's books. Owning movies and games or a bowling ball is an even bigger sin.
I happen to think they are good things for good uses. I guess if my heart were really concerned about the poor, I would take all my resources, sell them, and help the poor. Some have done this and I admire them. Then, why don't we all? And why don't those that have done it demand others do the same?
If pastor Trotter and Revolution Church thought it would be a good thing to give away the car and bless someone, then that is a good thing. Giving away the car then, isn't a waste. It is his motives and methods of doing so that people are questioning.
First of all, I think there's a difference between an individual's finances and a local church's. If a church decides to raise money for a bigger building, pay their pastor a huge salary, or buy a rockin' sound system for their sanctuary, that's their business....sort of. See, churches are 501(c)3's, which means they have tax-exempt status. The idea is that they are primarily there as a service and ministry for their surrounding community--they offer benefit and blessing to their community. But the reality is that a major chunk of the typical Americhurch's finance is used for things that really only benefit their members--sound systems, buildings, promotional materials, etc. The idea being that only those who are members and attenders benefit from these things that are tax-exempt. A good example of this is the building--many churches won't let you use their building unless you pay them, or, in the case of say, holding a wedding or funeral there, you have to be a member--it's not even enough that you're in the same denomination in some cases (the Pete and I went through that ordeal when we got married back in Oklahoma). I know of at least three churches that spend the majority of their money on things that only benefit members and provide absolutely NO ministries to the surrounding community (unless you showed up on Sunday morning to partake of the coffee and sound system). And our former church gave about 10% to missions (and nothing to other kinds of ministry that benefited the community). Which means when we tithed, we were really only tithing 1% of our income to the spread of the Gospel, and nothing to the poor in our own community!
If you handed me ten percent of your income and expected that it was going to help the poor (which is what the tithe is supposed to be for), wouldn't you be outraged that I took that money and spent 90% of it on myself? Maybe I threw a really great party, everyone I knew and they knew was invited (not everyone would come, though), and maybe I took some of your money (and others) to enhance our party experience by buying a hot tub and some new speakers. Sure, most of us there talk about God (heck, I'll even get up and talk about something resembling the gospel for 30 minutes or so), and I'll make sure all the music mentions God, or Jesus, or at least my desire for God or Jesus, but the people who really benefit are only the people who come. In fact, most people don't come because they find it lame and consider it a waste of their time. And the people who come are the people who gave the money to make the party so "awesome." So, those donations that we can write off on our taxes under "charity" are mostly benefiting us, the people who made the donations. Hardly a charity, and hardly real ministry (as defined by Jesus).
In contrast, I know better than to write off my new stereo, guitar, or car under "charity." I don't justify buying a new hot tub with mine and others' money by saying it will entice people to my house so I can share the gospel with them. And I don't persuade people to become my friend or God's by bribing them with "gifts." As the other preacher said, if this is what it takes, there's something wrong. And as Steve once said, "whatever you do to bring people to church, you'll have to do to KEEP them there," which means this greed, materialism, and wasteful consumption will never be addressed if it was a means for getting people to come in the first place.
Sorry if that was too long or cynical. :( Greg, over at The Parish puts it way more eloquently than I can. Read the blog entry and the comments following, to see why I don't think the car giveaway is a good idea (at least, not how it's been presented, handled and yes, promoted).
If they want to give away a car to promote their church, I wish they'd just be honest that that's what they're doing. It plays into people's sense of greed and materialism (and let's not forget LUCK!), which are not emotions a church should seek to entice in others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
