Use it up, wear it out, make it do or do without.
Yankee Proverb
The proverb came to mind not long ago as I read a newspaper article reporting that in this trying economy more people are having their clothing mended and shoes resoled, using the public library instead of buying on Amazon, and preparing more meals at home instead of eating out.
It came to mind again as I was wheeling the garbage can to the street. It was nearly full, despite the fact that only my wife and I live at home, and we recycle newspapers and magazines, aluminum and steel cans and cardboard. We save our plastic grocery bags for use by the food pantry.
What is it that we are throwing away? By far, the most substantial part of it is packaging. Everything seems to come in multiple layers of paper and plastic. Some of it is leftovers that got left over for too long. It is obvious that we are throwing out more than we’re wearing out.
Whether you call it frugality or conservation, it is unarguable that our footprint on this plant is much larger than that of the generations that went before us.
I’m sure that the generation my grandparents belonged to didn’t think of themselves as being eco-friendly, or as we say now, “green.” They thought they were simply being sensible.
Certainly industries used our air and our streams as convenient dumps and didn’t concern themselves with the consequences.
On a lesser level, not everything my grandparents did, such as burning household garbage in an empty oil drum and then burying what remained in an old borrow pit, was particularly earth friendly. But on the whole, they made far fewer demands on the planet’s resources than we do.
We buy paper towels by the case; my grandmother wiped the kitchen counter with a cloth from a 25-pound bag of flour.
Many in our generation and even more in the one following us buy bottled water. When my grandfather went to the field, he carried his drinking water in a gallon syrup jug, insulated with an empty 10-pound sugar sack.
Most of the food was grown in the garden and didn’t come shrink-wrapped in a Styrofoam tray. Meat purchased at the grocery store was wrapped in butcher paper instead of plastic. Far more items, from foodstuffs to hardware were sold unpackaged.
My grandfather’s old Studebaker pickup truck probably was not as efficient as the engines of today’s vehicles. But he drove fewer miles in a year than we do in a month.
The closets in my grandparents’ house were impossibly small, but the closets and a couple of chifforobes held everything they owned, and they did not feel compelled to buy new things before the old clothes wore out.
At our house, the clothes dryer runs a good deal of the time; I can’t remember the last house we lived in that had a clothesline. Although my grandmother eventually had an automatic washing machine, she never had a dryer and never felt the need for one.
I don’t hold those days up as the ideal. Times change and so do we. I’m pretty sure, though, that despite our consumption of a larger share of the planet’s bounty, we are not really any happier than they were.
Would we be more content if we owned less, if we used less? I don’t know. All that simplicity may be more attractive in the abstract.
Intellectually, I know we have all kinds of stuff that we don’t really need, but as long as we have a place to put it – even if we can’t remember where we put it, or sometimes even remember that we have it – simplifying will continue to be a challenge.
My efforts thus far have been limited. I’ve thinned my library of a fair number of books, taking them to the public library for use in one of the Friends of the Library’s periodic book sales. But I have to consider a book multiple times before I admit that I’m not going to read it again or use it for reference. I’ve gotten rid of bags of clothing that no longer fits, things that are too big instead of too small. I want to make it expensive to regain the weight I’ve lost.
It was easy enough for Thoreau to preach, “Simplify, simplify, simplify.”
And simplifying would make us greener.
It’s the doing that is difficult.
Contact the writer at billatthelake@gmail.com
Friday, April 10, 2009
Friday, February 20, 2009
Conservatives -- Or Just Suckers?
If you have any doubt that state government in Alabama is operated for the benefit of the elected and the connected, look no further that the case of Rep. Sue Schmitz.
Schmitz, D-Toney, is accused by the feds of accepting a salary from Central Alabama Community College without doing the work to earn it.
Actually, it’s a second trial for Schmitz. Jurors in her first trial deadlocked. Perhaps they couldn’t decide whether taking a government check without doing much work is really a crime.
They might have reason to wonder. Prosecuting people for that kind of thing doesn’t seem to be at the top of state law enforcement’s priority list. It’s those picky old feds that insist on trying to change the way we do things in Alabama. In the Schmitz case, federal money was paying her salary, she’s charged with four counts of fraud and four counts of mail fraud.
(Students of history might recall that it wasn’t state law enforcement that toppled the corrupt Huey Long machine in Louisiana. It was the feds there, too. And it was mail fraud charges that began unraveling the regime).
Regardless of whether Schmitz actually showed up for work, it is how she got her job that offers an insight into how things work.
Did she send in her resume? Submit to interviews? Take a competitive exam?
Not if you believe the testimony of some people who have incentives to tell the truth; she just had powerful friends.
Consider Seth Hammett’s testimony.
Hammett, who wields considerable influence as House speaker, said Alabama Education Association executive secretary Paul Hubbert, who is generally regarded as the state’s most influential lobbyist, told him that Schmitz would be coming to see him with a request and that he’d take it as a favor if Hammett honored it.
Hammett said that at Schmitz’s request he asked the head of the committee over the education budget to include money for the job for her.
In response to a question from Schmitz’s attorney, Hammett said he had changed his testimony about whether he had asked for money to be added to the budget “upon reflection.” He didn’t say what encouraged that reflection.
Former two-year college system chancellor Roy Johnson, who is helping the feds while awaiting sentencing after pleading guilty to 15 felony counts (cooperating could net him less prison time), testified that both Hubbert and Hammett had asked him to find a job for Schmitz.
Perhaps I’m being cynical, but I wonder whether we would have heard about any of this if the Community Intensive Training for Youth program where Schmitz was employed were not run with federal money.
Although Schmitz doesn’t appear to have been a stickler about the procedures by which she got her job, she seems much more concerned about seeing that the rules on firing employees are followed to the letter. Schmitz, who was fired in October 2007, contested the firing on the grounds that the Fair Dismissal Act had not been followed.
An administrative law judge agreed, ruling that she could not be terminated at will. This week, a Montgomery County circuit judge upheld that ruling and ordered the college to reinstate her with back pay and benefits.
The college and the CITY program are appealing the order to grant Schmitz back pay.
Alabamians pride themselves on their conservatism. They hate paying taxes and are proud of it. Even if the two-year college scandal were the only looting of the public purse, there would be reason to think that too much of the taxpayers’ money goes to waste.
Unfortunately, it’s not the first scandal
It likely won’t be the last, because we Alabamians aren’t really conservatives.
We’re suckers.
Year after year we watch the elected take care of themselves and the connected. And then we elect them again, because they assure us they have “conservative Alabama values.”
Some conservatives. Some values.
Contact the writer at billatthelake@gmail.com
Schmitz, D-Toney, is accused by the feds of accepting a salary from Central Alabama Community College without doing the work to earn it.
Actually, it’s a second trial for Schmitz. Jurors in her first trial deadlocked. Perhaps they couldn’t decide whether taking a government check without doing much work is really a crime.
They might have reason to wonder. Prosecuting people for that kind of thing doesn’t seem to be at the top of state law enforcement’s priority list. It’s those picky old feds that insist on trying to change the way we do things in Alabama. In the Schmitz case, federal money was paying her salary, she’s charged with four counts of fraud and four counts of mail fraud.
(Students of history might recall that it wasn’t state law enforcement that toppled the corrupt Huey Long machine in Louisiana. It was the feds there, too. And it was mail fraud charges that began unraveling the regime).
Regardless of whether Schmitz actually showed up for work, it is how she got her job that offers an insight into how things work.
Did she send in her resume? Submit to interviews? Take a competitive exam?
Not if you believe the testimony of some people who have incentives to tell the truth; she just had powerful friends.
Consider Seth Hammett’s testimony.
Hammett, who wields considerable influence as House speaker, said Alabama Education Association executive secretary Paul Hubbert, who is generally regarded as the state’s most influential lobbyist, told him that Schmitz would be coming to see him with a request and that he’d take it as a favor if Hammett honored it.
Hammett said that at Schmitz’s request he asked the head of the committee over the education budget to include money for the job for her.
In response to a question from Schmitz’s attorney, Hammett said he had changed his testimony about whether he had asked for money to be added to the budget “upon reflection.” He didn’t say what encouraged that reflection.
Former two-year college system chancellor Roy Johnson, who is helping the feds while awaiting sentencing after pleading guilty to 15 felony counts (cooperating could net him less prison time), testified that both Hubbert and Hammett had asked him to find a job for Schmitz.
Perhaps I’m being cynical, but I wonder whether we would have heard about any of this if the Community Intensive Training for Youth program where Schmitz was employed were not run with federal money.
Although Schmitz doesn’t appear to have been a stickler about the procedures by which she got her job, she seems much more concerned about seeing that the rules on firing employees are followed to the letter. Schmitz, who was fired in October 2007, contested the firing on the grounds that the Fair Dismissal Act had not been followed.
An administrative law judge agreed, ruling that she could not be terminated at will. This week, a Montgomery County circuit judge upheld that ruling and ordered the college to reinstate her with back pay and benefits.
The college and the CITY program are appealing the order to grant Schmitz back pay.
Alabamians pride themselves on their conservatism. They hate paying taxes and are proud of it. Even if the two-year college scandal were the only looting of the public purse, there would be reason to think that too much of the taxpayers’ money goes to waste.
Unfortunately, it’s not the first scandal
It likely won’t be the last, because we Alabamians aren’t really conservatives.
We’re suckers.
Year after year we watch the elected take care of themselves and the connected. And then we elect them again, because they assure us they have “conservative Alabama values.”
Some conservatives. Some values.
Contact the writer at billatthelake@gmail.com
Thursday, January 29, 2009
A Bucket of Warm Spit
The government scandals in Illinois led pundits to draw parallels with the colorful history of political corruption in my home state of Louisiana.
The comparisons are facile, but shallow.
A more striking parallel, which those pundits have failed to draw, is between the Louisiana Legislature in the Huey Long era.
Louisiana had a constitution that like the U.S. Constitution created three branches of government. Huey Long was elected governor under that constitution and proceeded to shred it, establishing what is likely the closest thing we have seen to a dictatorship in America.
He seized control of the legislature. Those who didn’t succumb to persuasion were bullied and blackmailed. One legislator is said to have a waved a copy of the constitution in front of Long only to be met with the response that “I’m the constitution now.”
Soon the courts and the supposedly independent state agencies were under his thumb, too. He even instituted a Bureau of Criminal Identification, a separate organization responsible only to the governor, which could arrest and detain anybody without warrant.
Of course, Adolph Hitler became chancellor of Germany under the Weimar Constitution and then shredded it.
We can look back and shake our heads and wonder why no one was brave enough or principled enough or cared to defend the constitutions.
One day perhaps we will look at our national government and wonder why no one was brave enough or principled enough or cared to defend the Constitution.
Power flows to the executive branch during times of military or financial crisis. People seem to be more willing to accept authoritarian government when they are afraid.
Congress long ago gave up its constitutional authority to declare war. Its authority “to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.”
After 9/11, when the Land of the Brave became the Land of the Afraid, instead of providing leadership to defend the constitution, the Congress rolled over to the executive branch. The same people who once called for reading the Constitution literally suddenly found that some of the provisions that spell out the most fundamental rights – the right to a Writ of Habeas Corpus, the prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to a speedy trial and to be confronted with witnesses – didn’t mean exactly what the words say. The executive branch could decide what they meant.
The Congress’s most immediate priorities seem to be securing partisan advantage and winning re-election.
The founding fathers weren’t gods, or even demigods, although I think we can make the case that they were visionaries. They had had recent experiences with the abuses of power, and they framed a constitution that was designed to prevent the government they were creating from subjecting its citizens to those same abuses.
They provided a framework, but no written constitution can protect our freedom unless we – and those we elect to lead – believe in it enough to defend it.
John Nance Garner famously said that the vice presidency wasn’t worth a bucket of warm spit.
Which may put it one notch above the Congress.
Contract the writer at billatthelake@gmail.com
The comparisons are facile, but shallow.
A more striking parallel, which those pundits have failed to draw, is between the Louisiana Legislature in the Huey Long era.
Louisiana had a constitution that like the U.S. Constitution created three branches of government. Huey Long was elected governor under that constitution and proceeded to shred it, establishing what is likely the closest thing we have seen to a dictatorship in America.
He seized control of the legislature. Those who didn’t succumb to persuasion were bullied and blackmailed. One legislator is said to have a waved a copy of the constitution in front of Long only to be met with the response that “I’m the constitution now.”
Soon the courts and the supposedly independent state agencies were under his thumb, too. He even instituted a Bureau of Criminal Identification, a separate organization responsible only to the governor, which could arrest and detain anybody without warrant.
Of course, Adolph Hitler became chancellor of Germany under the Weimar Constitution and then shredded it.
We can look back and shake our heads and wonder why no one was brave enough or principled enough or cared to defend the constitutions.
One day perhaps we will look at our national government and wonder why no one was brave enough or principled enough or cared to defend the Constitution.
Power flows to the executive branch during times of military or financial crisis. People seem to be more willing to accept authoritarian government when they are afraid.
Congress long ago gave up its constitutional authority to declare war. Its authority “to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.”
After 9/11, when the Land of the Brave became the Land of the Afraid, instead of providing leadership to defend the constitution, the Congress rolled over to the executive branch. The same people who once called for reading the Constitution literally suddenly found that some of the provisions that spell out the most fundamental rights – the right to a Writ of Habeas Corpus, the prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to a speedy trial and to be confronted with witnesses – didn’t mean exactly what the words say. The executive branch could decide what they meant.
The Congress’s most immediate priorities seem to be securing partisan advantage and winning re-election.
The founding fathers weren’t gods, or even demigods, although I think we can make the case that they were visionaries. They had had recent experiences with the abuses of power, and they framed a constitution that was designed to prevent the government they were creating from subjecting its citizens to those same abuses.
They provided a framework, but no written constitution can protect our freedom unless we – and those we elect to lead – believe in it enough to defend it.
John Nance Garner famously said that the vice presidency wasn’t worth a bucket of warm spit.
Which may put it one notch above the Congress.
Contract the writer at billatthelake@gmail.com
Monday, January 5, 2009
Do Overs Are For Kids' Games
The slate looks clean, but underneath, the chalk remembers the soul beneath.
We were not sorry to tear the last leaf off the 2008 calendar.
Although there were times of joy and blessing, it is not a year that we expect to recall with nostalgia. What we will recall is Adelaide’s fall down the stairs, resulting in severe injuries, followed by my summer of weaknesses from blood loss after surgery and bypass surgery for three clogged arteries. (And we, along with millions of Americans, saw the value of our life savings erode dramatically.)
So, we are ready to move on.
There are no do overs except in kids’ games. We all know intellectually that our lives don’t have chapters that coincide neatly with the months and volumes that correspond to the year.
We awoke on the morning of Jan. 1 the same people who went to bed on Dec. 31, carried along on the current of everything that has gone before. Adelaide is still recovering the injuries suffered in her fall, and I am still recovering from the bypass surgery. And who knows what the new year will bring.
Let’s face it, though. That brand new calendar inevitably invites us to evaluate where we are and to make new plans.
I learned long ago that New Year’s resolutions tend have a larger element of wish than resolve.
But there is one resolution that I happily will renew: I will try to recognize that each day is a gift to be appreciated and savored.
The writer can be contacted at billatthelake@gmail.com
--Lyric from “Blink of an Eye” by Ann and Roger McNamee
We were not sorry to tear the last leaf off the 2008 calendar.
Although there were times of joy and blessing, it is not a year that we expect to recall with nostalgia. What we will recall is Adelaide’s fall down the stairs, resulting in severe injuries, followed by my summer of weaknesses from blood loss after surgery and bypass surgery for three clogged arteries. (And we, along with millions of Americans, saw the value of our life savings erode dramatically.)
So, we are ready to move on.
There are no do overs except in kids’ games. We all know intellectually that our lives don’t have chapters that coincide neatly with the months and volumes that correspond to the year.
We awoke on the morning of Jan. 1 the same people who went to bed on Dec. 31, carried along on the current of everything that has gone before. Adelaide is still recovering the injuries suffered in her fall, and I am still recovering from the bypass surgery. And who knows what the new year will bring.
Let’s face it, though. That brand new calendar inevitably invites us to evaluate where we are and to make new plans.
I learned long ago that New Year’s resolutions tend have a larger element of wish than resolve.
But there is one resolution that I happily will renew: I will try to recognize that each day is a gift to be appreciated and savored.
The writer can be contacted at billatthelake@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)