The headline read something like this, "Britney Spears' British Accent Raises Questions About Her Psychological Health." As if everything else she's done hasn't? If speaking in a British accent makes one questionably insane, my wife is definitely under suspicion... along with just about everybody in England.
Today Janelle and I were at the post office and the lady behind the counter spoke with a distinct British accent. I felt like asking her if she was suspected of being insane.
Anyways...
The new Tata Nano was unveiled in India this month. By the way, Tata is the auto manufacturer that plans to buy Jaguar and Land Rover. The Nano is a car that costs only $2500 US, it is very minimal--for example, it has no power steering, no radio, no air conditioning. It boasts almost phenomenal gas mileage, though and is widely referred to as "the people's car"--I guess Volkswagen isn't anymore.
And what do environment activists have to say about this? They're not happy, because a cheap car will result in more people owning cars, roads will become more crowded, and--as a result--there will be more pollution. What do you think of that?
My big question is, what's the problem? If it's okay for some people to have a car, shouldn't it be okay for everyone to have a car? And if an auto manufacturer wants to make it possible for more people to have automobiles, that's fantastic! Or is it only okay for "rich" people to own cars? When we start to think this way, we jump over the individual, we think in terms of groups of people--or worse, we ignore the individual altogether and only think about our policies, and what is better for our world. I don't think any right-headed person or group would prevent any individuals from owning cars if they could afford them (for example) but when we say things like a cost-effective car like the Nano is harmful to the environment and, therefore, must be controlled or limited and we create government policies to that effect, what we are doing is preventing individuals from owning automobiles. To me, there's a certain amount of hypocrisy in that. We want to prevent lower-income people from owning automobiles because of the possibly disastrous results, but we ourselves won't give up our automobiles.
I said that I don't believe in changing the world, but I think we all agree that the world needs changing. And right now, I don't care about the Tata Nano or about government policies concerning the environment. I don't even care about Britney Spears' British accent. What I really want to talk about is individuals. When we talk politics, when we talk about global change, and activism, what we should be concerned about is not our policies and our ideas about what is good or bad for the environment because we cannot change the world systems. The world will always be corrupt, always be evil, always be governed by greed. We cannot change that. But we can change ourselves and that is the most effective and most important change we can make.
Of course, there's much more to be said on this...
Today Janelle and I were at the post office and the lady behind the counter spoke with a distinct British accent. I felt like asking her if she was suspected of being insane.
Anyways...
The new Tata Nano was unveiled in India this month. By the way, Tata is the auto manufacturer that plans to buy Jaguar and Land Rover. The Nano is a car that costs only $2500 US, it is very minimal--for example, it has no power steering, no radio, no air conditioning. It boasts almost phenomenal gas mileage, though and is widely referred to as "the people's car"--I guess Volkswagen isn't anymore.
And what do environment activists have to say about this? They're not happy, because a cheap car will result in more people owning cars, roads will become more crowded, and--as a result--there will be more pollution. What do you think of that?
My big question is, what's the problem? If it's okay for some people to have a car, shouldn't it be okay for everyone to have a car? And if an auto manufacturer wants to make it possible for more people to have automobiles, that's fantastic! Or is it only okay for "rich" people to own cars? When we start to think this way, we jump over the individual, we think in terms of groups of people--or worse, we ignore the individual altogether and only think about our policies, and what is better for our world. I don't think any right-headed person or group would prevent any individuals from owning cars if they could afford them (for example) but when we say things like a cost-effective car like the Nano is harmful to the environment and, therefore, must be controlled or limited and we create government policies to that effect, what we are doing is preventing individuals from owning automobiles. To me, there's a certain amount of hypocrisy in that. We want to prevent lower-income people from owning automobiles because of the possibly disastrous results, but we ourselves won't give up our automobiles.
I said that I don't believe in changing the world, but I think we all agree that the world needs changing. And right now, I don't care about the Tata Nano or about government policies concerning the environment. I don't even care about Britney Spears' British accent. What I really want to talk about is individuals. When we talk politics, when we talk about global change, and activism, what we should be concerned about is not our policies and our ideas about what is good or bad for the environment because we cannot change the world systems. The world will always be corrupt, always be evil, always be governed by greed. We cannot change that. But we can change ourselves and that is the most effective and most important change we can make.
Of course, there's much more to be said on this...
amen.
ReplyDelete