Michael DeJong2013-05-22T05:49:39-04:00Michael DeJonghttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/index.php?author=michael-dejongCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Michael DeJongGood old fashioned elbow grease.The Human Stain on "Sustainism"tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.8070002011-01-11T12:25:40-05:002011-05-25T18:25:24-04:00Michael DeJonghttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-dejong/
Enter humans. (Thud.)
He and she, in the blink of an (evolutionary) eye became the ideal hunters, the perfect gatherers, the expert farmers, the brutal conquerors, the greedy industrialists, the publish-or-perish academicians, the cultural mavens, political pundits, and Madison Avenue hawkers of the "new and improved." Then, out of sheer necessity evolved the "I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore" planetary "saviors" who applied all of those use 'em or lose 'em skill sets to fight the good fight against selfish mega-corporations and the plunderers of all the natural resources that were once our birthright from Mother Nature. Because of the mess to which we've all contributed, Big Mama is pissed, as she damn-well should be. If you've even half-listened to the echoing Zeitgeist of environmentalism since Rachel Carson penned The Silent Spring, some 50 years ago, you may have heard Ms. Nature as she shouted at the top of her asthmatic lungs about sustainability. She's one angry goddess whose panties are in a twist because unfortunately, what was once the goal of humanitarians and environmentalists -- a salvaged eco-system in which our offspring could exist, thrive and believe - became a civilization brainwashed into believing that "better living through chemistry" would be the answer to all of our world's problems.
"Sustainism" is but the latest in a long list of terms ("the new design," "sustainable design" and part of the cultural movements of "polymodernism," "supermodernism," and "super-hybridity," as identified in a recent New York Times Arts piece by Alice Rawsthorn) being bandied about as we feebly attempt to define how we should live, how we should think, how we should act while we make our sincerest attempts to move forward while avoiding the tipping point of no return. Unfortunately, many researchers suspect that it might have already happened, that it might already be upon us, or might be imminent within the next generation -- in other words, soon.
We should have been afraid because while we weren't looking, while we were kvetching about this or that, the environmental sky had already fallen. (Thud #2). Now ivory-tower intellectuals and symbolists proudly display their "magical seeds" of sustainism. Once planted and properly watered they're intended to save us and our planet from the man-made viruses of greed, waste and indifference that are killing us. Sustainism offers that if properly nurtured through a cultural revolution, its nuggets of wisdom will grow to become the mighty beanstalk of ecological achievement and will bear a cornucopia of contributions toward a sustainable way of life and work as a tidier world is created in their (literal) image.
Built on recycled principles founded on long-established ecological values such as lowered carbon footprints and recycling/upcycling, as we lowered our energy usage, as we attempted to lessen CO2 emissions, etc., sustainism suggests that we'll be led to the promised land filled with better and healthier home and work environments, reforestation, cleaner oceans, lakes and rivers, et al.
Sustainism is intended to include the imposition and implementation of both the "physical" and the 'biological' aspects of sustainability on industry and individuals. Sustainability's original principles, going back to the first Earth Day, however, have included long term perspectives and a tree-hugger community of "be here now," pie-faced, granola-crunching (myself included) individuals who long ago embraced their own eco-welfare as tightly and ferociously as they embraced the eco-well-being of others, locally and globally (Does the term "Think global; act local" ring a bell?). The early pioneers took into consideration fair-trade long before the "cultural revolution" of sustainism arrived to ease our conscience when we buy our $5.00 cup of fair-trade coffee (though I'd gladly wager that none of the gurus of sustainism would ever exchange places with the coffee bean pickers of Guatemala, no matter how "fair" that fair-trade is). Earlier sustainability design movements brought us ergonomic design that included "cradle-to-cradle" models for manufacturing. They fought to redirect mass consumption towards mass participation, and they whistle-blew industrial "green-washing" when they saw it, smelled it, tasted it or stepped in it. And although the sustainability Davids for the most part lost to the Industrial Goliaths in this particular fight, they tried as hard as they could to take greed out of the economic equation so that a "green-washed" public trying to do the right thing by their families and planet weren't charged more for products that were questionably "better" (or shall we say "less-bad"), and unlike the masters of sustainism, many of the old-time "crunchy-granola-ites" fought as hard against the deterioration of the planet as they fought for economic justice.
To be fair, assessing the financial outcomes and the feasibility of proposed results has been essential in almost every enterprise concerning environmentalism -- some more than others. That said, the human stain of bottom-line profitability is as equally present in sustainism as it is in free-market Capitalism (only now with an underlying "new and improved" eco-twist). There's a new cynicism in the sustain-ist manifesto that, in my opinion, offers a sophisticatedly slick false sense of well being and a "nudge-nudge-wink-wink" nod to success as being defined as a positive contribution to all stakeholders, directly or indirectly, while defining 'assets' and 'returns on investment' as mere "concepts," and implying that sustainability and fair-trade, are the true profits on the bottom line. I'm no economist, but I suspect that this particular human stain on sustainism will quickly send their high-minded sustain-ist ideals right out the window when investors and stockholders see the internal rate of return and their dividends shrink away to nothing-ism.
Tim Brown, CEO and President, of IDEO, a worldwide design consultancy firm stated that "Sustainism will drive the creativity of the twenty-first century. By connecting the issues of sustainability, social networks, localism, biomimicry, community, urban planning, food and a host of others..." And he and his prestigious firm are to be applauded for having done a great deal in holistic eco-areas such as health care, energy, and childhood mortality. Yet, as stated in that same NY Times article, "'he also provoked a vigorous debate... on the need to develop reliable ways of assessing the efficacy of design projects in those fields, where the outcomes are often intangible -- rather than tangible things, like products, which are easier to assess...' Practical proposals like this are what designers need, as well as data, definitions, exemplars of success and cautionary tales of failure if they're to realize the potential of sustainism or whatever else anyone wants to call the next 'ism.'"
(Ummm? Was that another thud?)
At the other end of the spectrum, as Cynthia Smith, the Cooper-Hewitt Museum curator who brilliantly brought to life the exhibition "Design for the other 90%" showed, "sustainism" in the developing world is about staying alive just one more day; making fetid water potable; and valuing innovations by indigenous peoples and scientists, architects and engineers from the developed world equally. Modernity is a concept beyond the day-to-day reality of 90% of our brothers and sisters in the developing, draught-ridden, tsunami-flooded, famine-suffering, often corruptly governed, cramped, poverty-stricken countries in which they subsist. Perhaps the "sustainism" cultural manifesto would be best re-worded as "subsist-ism" if it is to have any true meaning to the majority of the world.
(Ouch -- thud #4! But who's counting.)
How can sustainism be the new modernism or even a replacement for modernity? 90% of the world's population lives in pre-20th century conditions; only 3% of our planet's water is potable and almost none is available to them; and the vast majority have limited access to even rudimentary technologies. (Eh-hem? Electricity?) Sustainism is a manifesto being promoted as the cure-all to modernism, without even examining the biomorphic, social, socio-economic, and elitist values that led to its birth after World War I, and its cousin, post-modernism that sprang up in the aftermath of World War II in the primarily white developed world. Comparing modernity, a term particular to art, culture and an elite few with sustainability, a crisis that is systemic, viral, and problematic is like forcing a Mies van der Rohe chair, an uncomfortable yet pricy interior design furnishing icon, on a homeless individual in need of anything but an uncomfortable yet pricy interior design furnishing icon. Considerate or not, to the homeless individual, the "form follows function" of the Mies van der Rohe chair really doesn't matter. Instead of an uncomfortable yet pricy interior design furnishing icon, what he really wants and needs is just something, anything, to sit on; the practicality and comfort of a warm and dry place to crash; and a solid meal. In his moment of need, the average homeless individual doesn't give a rat's ass about "form." What he really cares about is "function." Period. This (albeit simplistic) comparison shows how disconnected the intellectuals of the world really are from the real, often life-threatening, problems on which they continue to pontificate from on high.
(Thud. That's the sound of the poor homeless guy's backside meeting up with the cold hard pavement as the leather on the Mies chair finally wore through..)
Sustainism as a manifesto for the 21st century is being touted as a signal of a new cultural era, where the world is re-designed as more connected, more localist, more digital and more sustainable, and it's strongest proponents have also created a "universal" language to illustrate how sustainism is already reshaping global and local cultures, business practices, technologies, and the media.
I am often weary when a new "ism" is rung up the flagpole to see who salutes, since, for the most part, "isms" have been established to take or abuse power, oppress others, impose moral or religious beliefs on "non-believers," etc. (Consider just a few: fascism, Nazism, egoism, religious extremism, racism, Imperialism, sexism, nihilism, ageism, terrorism.) Ultimately, "isms" are rarely inclusive and respectful of the collective good, but rather create walls of separation. The same kind of walls that have created "us vs. them," "us over them," "pomposity vs. humility," etc. And of course, there are "isms" that are or were benignly intended for the social good, such as objectivism, egalitarianism, transcendentalism, humanism, rationalism, humanitarianism, utilitarianism, abolitionism, socialism, existentialism, hedonism, nudism, agnosticism, deism, etc. Thrown against the wall like a piece of under-cooked pasta, most of them have not stuck because contrary to popular belief, "one 'ism' does not fit all!" And there were "isms" that were exclusively particular to artistic cultural movements such as Impressionism, Post-Impressionism, Cubism, Dadaism, Surrealism, Expressionism, Hyper-Realism, Minimalism, Conceptualism, etc. But even the "form'-alism follows 'function'-alism" of the Bauhaus School that brought us that Mies van der Rohe chair never believed itself to be the salvation of every aspect of human society and endeavor.
(It must be time for someone to declare the Thud-ism manifesto.)
Only time will tell which "ism" category the protagonists of "sustainism" will land -- the dictatorial, the socially benign, or the culturally artistic. The intent is that sustainism will mark a shift not only in thinking and doing but in collective perception -- of how we live, who we do business with, how we feed ourselves, what we design, where we travel, and with and how we communicate and how we deal with nature. Sustainism, it is believed, will recast our relationship to all that was modern in the 20th century (good, bad or indifferent), yet also bind ecological issues into one larger picture of our world. What hasn't been factored in is the human stain in sustainism -- the greenwashing of the public images of some of the world's worst polluters, the petty philanthropic endeavors of the world's most egregious destroyers of the natural order, and on the micro-level -- the greed and egotism of con artists and snake oil salesmen, and those who want to exploit what is the "hot" new trend for their own fame and fortune until the next thing comes along or the Emperor is proven to be completely "butt naked."
"Sustainability" might be achievable as a relevant goal for eco-conscious individuals, NGOs, not-for-profits, government municipalities, social entrepreneurs, and even Big Oil, Big Pharma, etc., if their intent is to reach that goal increment by increment. "Sustainism," on the other hand, might sadly be just another elitist marketing bandwagon for which a small privileged percentile in the developed world will be affected, but close to 100% of the under-privileged in the developing world won't be affected in any meaningful way. I suspect that sustainism is just the hot air of intellectuals and those who consider themselves superior with the sole intention to profit either financially, academically or as part of a desperate eat-or-be-eaten quest for immortality by self-defining their haughty intentions as yet another "manifesto."
]]>Greensburg: An Eco 9/11tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.6042162010-06-09T11:57:37-04:002011-05-25T16:40:24-04:00Michael DeJonghttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-dejong/
And while the scars of any one tragedy may seem barely healed, it's easy to forget one disaster and everything that it once entailed when the next one happens so quickly on the tail of the last. In our world of endless media attention and sound-bites, and images of newscasters posing before blue-screens, disasters just mind-numbingly seem to come and go with little or no consideration for their survivors; the living and breathing individuals in the wake of a catastrophe from which they are left to pick up the proverbial pieces.
The rebuilding of something (anything!) at the World Trade Center site is still consuming millions of dollars, has withstood numerous plan alterations, been the object of political football or hot-potato games, then even more re-conceptualizing, as well as agonizing frustration for community and survivors who demanded that their input be heard. And after almost nine years of indecision, there is now physical evidence climbing taller than the barriers surrounding the site of Ground Zero, of the wasteful monstrosity now being erected where the iconic towers once stood.
In sharp contrast, after their misfortune, the folks of Greensburg, Kansas pretty quickly and unanimously chose to modestly rebuild their entire town in a mindful and thoughtful manner. Little Greensburg, with everything that once stood there now destroyed and laying in ruins in the aftermath of the most violent twister ever, has transformed its small municipality into a model town that represents an ongoing living laboratory for everything eco, green and sustainable. (With a name as green as Greensburg, what were their options?)
I lived in Manhattan just a few blocks away from where the World Trade Center attacks occurred, and for months I carried with me a morose and gloom-and-doom feeling until those feelings turned to outrage and anger when the Bush/Cheney Gang waged a preemptive war by exploiting me and my fellow Americans' genuine fears and insecurities. In contrast, and perhaps because of my physical distance from it, my affinity for the environment and environmental innovations has made me especially fascinated by, fond of and interested in Greensburg, Kansas and their post-catastrophic decisions. (I don't know how differently I might be feeling had I walked out of my basement only to discover everything but the foundation to my house gone, and that everything I knew and loved had been blown away or so destroyed that no landmarks existed that could help me get my bearings.)
Without a doubt, for those that survived the 9/11 attacks and those that lost loved ones that day, their lives have been unalterably changed forever; however, although harmed and forever scarred, New York City, its boroughs, neighborhoods, communities and infrastructures for the most part still operated. If the attack on the towers could be compared to a cancerous tumor, it was malignant but had not metastasized. And while in a way we all "survived" the attacks, and had our own versions of PTSD, life continued pretty much as usual within just a few weeks. In comparison, instead of being simply inconvenienced by re-routed subway lines, the residents of Greensburg Kansas lost everything. They lost 11 residents, their government buildings, schools and places of worship, shopping establishments, restaurants, playgrounds, historical landmarks, streets and roads, century-old trees and most importantly, their homes and every possession within them. They lost e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g.
As part of the commemorative events that marked the third anniversary of the 2007 tornado and the town's progress-to-date, I was invited as an eco-cleaning maven, along with my partner Richard (who has done a great deal of research into the negative and toxic effects of commercial household cleaners), and our dog, Emerson (a Cairn Terrier just like Toto who also came from Kansas! -- can it get any gayer?!) to visit the town of Greensburg to give presentations. (To refresh your memory, the OneCleanWorld Foundation donated 600 copies of my first book Clean: The Humble Art of Zen-Cleansing to Greensburg/GreenTown to be distributed to every household and local business.)
While there, we gave presentations on the physical and neurological health risks to adults (especially women), children and pets associated with ordinary commercial cleaners, and how the townspeople can keep their "green" LEED-certified buildings really green by demonstrating cleaning techniques that use only the natural ingredients of baking soda, borax, lemons, salt, and white vinegar.
While in Greensburg, not only did I explain and demonstrate how to safely clean using the local coffee shop's bathroom and various appliances and surfaces of the state-of-the-art GreenTown Eco-Silo Home, (which also serves as GreenTown's offices and a visitors' information center) we also stayed in the guest quarters. As part of their green initiative and to additionally avoid potential devastation from future tornadoes, the first Eco-Silo Home was built to withstand winds in excess of 200 mph -- the average force of an EF5 tornado.
Through the generosity of some major corporations as well as smaller, yet highly innovative eco-entrepreneurs -- too many to list here, the Eco-Silo Home was constructed, "infrastructured," decorated and landscaped with interesting, sustainable, eco-friendly yet luxurious materials and products. Doubling as a living science museum and lodge for visitors, the home which combines repurposed materials and some of the finest examples of modernism in this century to-date, is additionally intended as the first in a line of new construction which will continue to showcase the newest, best and greenest techniques, practices and materials for Sustainism available at their time of construction, and to hopefully become the centerpiece of Greensburg's growing eco-tourism trade.
Established to raise funds, provide resources, disseminate information and offer support to rebuild Greensburg as a model international green community, Daniel Wallach, Executive Director of the nonprofit organization Greensburg/GreenTown and his partner, Program Director Catherine Hart, along with Site Manager Ruth Ann Wedel, and Project Managers Joah Bussert and Stephanie Peterson were our willing tour guides and impeccable hosts.
As Greensburg's new public and private buildings (including eco-efficient low and middle income housing) were completed, the residents witnessed the doublewide trailers that temporarily housed city offices and businesses and even served as the hospital disappear to reveal the new, hip and modern architectural interpretations for their City Hall, public works facility and the Kiowa County Memorial Hospital. Lest I forget, private enterprises, both big and small, that now line the newly yet partially re-constructed streets of "downtown," that include an ingenious sewage and rain run-off system, are the Centera Bank, the John Deere Dealership, the Green Bean Coffee Co., Fleener's Furniture, The Last Tangle Beauty Shop, Starla's Stitch & Frame, a funeral home, a teen center, a motel and public park among other projects, including a brilliant building constructed with funds from Sun Chips to incubate new eco- and sustainable entrepreneurial start-ups. And the new Greensburg High School will be completed in August for its first graduating classes of 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 as well.
Moreover, with the breeze symbolizing a metaphor for change, to collect the energy present from the almost constant 17-mile-an-hour Kansas winds, off in the distance is the new wind farm with turbines that continuously spin like beautiful pin-wheels in the sky, generating electricity for the town.
But despite the new construction, financial and emotional support and infectious enthusiasm and optimism, evidence of the tornado remains peppered in and around the small town of Greensburg. Still remaining are the constant reminders of the devastation left behind; trees left in branchless tangles, roofless shambles of hand-laid stone foundations of once century-old structures, empty weed-filled lots, the constant traffic and beeping of backhoes, and the bare slab foundations of what were once homes but now have only haunting stairways leading down to what were once basements that, luckily, saved the lives of many local residents.
It took literally thousands of individuals and hundreds of companies and a lot of government aid to make the rebuilding of Greensburg possible. Yet despite the eco-improvements, the scars of their tragedies now and again, momentarily appear to offer a glimpse into the terrifying psychological consequences that surviving one of the worst natural disasters in history entail.
Notwithstanding all the innovations and sensitive consideration for the environment, Greensburg, in my opinion, may still be best defined by the interesting cross-culture of its thankful, grateful, gracious and considerate survivors. Many thanks to the residents of Greensburg, Kansas and the staff of GreenTown for having my partner and me as your guests. Seeing your town rise from the tangled debris and mind-numbing tragedy to become an international environmental inspiration for this and future generations was awe inspiring and humbling for us both.
To make a tax-deductible donation to the OneCleanWorld Foundation, please send your gift to: OCWF, 232A Fourth Street, 2nd floor, Jersey City, NJ 07302 or contact info@OneCleanWorld.org
To make a tax-deductible donation to Greensburg/GreenTown, visit their website at www.greensburggreentown.org
To purchase any of the MyKindOfClean books that support OCWF, visit B&N.com or Amazon.com.
]]>Greensburg, Kansas: From Green-town to Clean-towntag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.5472792010-05-04T16:12:04-04:002011-05-25T16:15:25-04:00Michael DeJonghttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-dejong/"There's no place like home, there's no place like home, there's no place like home"
It seems like natural and man-made disasters have become a common occurrence in the first decade of the new millennium. Of course, the tragic attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon on September 11, 2001, killing 3,000 people would fall into the man-made category. And Hurricane Katrina and the breach in 50 drainage and navigational levees was both a natural disaster and the worst engineering disaster in the history of the United States, ravaging New Orleans and other parts of Louisiana and Mississippi. Katrina was soon followed by Hurricane Rita the strongest hurricane of 2005, but also the most intense tropical cyclone ever recorded in the Gulf of Mexico.
The tsunami in the Indian Ocean that struck Indonesia came without warning and flooded nearly an entire island with the power of 23,000 atomic bombs, killing 200,000 people. A 7.9 magnitude earthquake in the Sichuan province of China in 2008 killed 70,000 people, and in January a 7.0 earthquake tore through an already crumbling Haiti, the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, affecting 3 million people, killing 230,000, and leaving the 380,000 orphans with even less hope than ever before.
And just last week, the second of two volcanoes in Iceland in just one month spewed a 5.3 mile high plume of ash halting tourist and business flights to and from the EU, but also put the shipping of commercial perishables (flowers, fruit, vegetables, etc.) at a standstill, wilting and rotting. So the volcano eruption's effect on the global economy cannot yet be measured. These are just the few disasters that easily came to mind. As horrible as each was, the 24-hour news cycle refused to let us forget one until the next hit. All have made headlines, and left a lasting impression on the victims and survivors, and many of those that want to help have fallen into donor fatigue.
One natural disaster, the most powerful of which occurred in the U.S., that garnered little press internationally but nonetheless was overwhelming to those that lived through it, was the EF5 tornado in the Southwest corner of Kansas on May 4, 2007. The EF scale (Enhanced Fujita) was used for the first time in 1971 when parts of central Florida were struck by multiple tornadoes, the strongest of which were rated at EF3 on the new scale. The first time the highest assessment of an EF5 tornado was used was for the twister that destroyed 95% of the town of Greensburg, Kansas, killing 11 people. The winds reached over 205 mph, peeled roofs off building after building before flattening the structures to rubble, made cars fly through the air as if they were plastic bags in a breeze, sent farm equipment soaring from the farms into town shattering storefronts, leaving mass destruction in its wake; all of which left the town's population devastated and unsure of what to do to rebuild their lives.
Many who live there lost every material possession they had, from their homes and cars to family photo albums and other heirlooms. But the nearly 1,400 people who live in Greensburg quickly regrouped and took on the daunting task of rebuilding their town from scratch and reinventing it by striving to become the greenest community imaginable -- after all, green was already in their name.
In the three-year aftermath of their disaster, Greensburg, Kansas was and still is becoming a national model for environmentally conscious living because of the town's fervent commitment to rebuild sustainably with energy-efficient and environmentally-thoughtful features and eco-friendly infrastructures. They are attempting groundbreaking and innovative ways to go green such as adding ground-source heating and cooling systems to new steel-reinforced concrete construction, solar hot water, rooftop vegetable gardens, wind turbines to generate electrical power and lights that don't require electricity, all of which are expected to save local businesses and homeowners an estimated $25,000 a year in energy costs.
Celebratory and commemorative events from April 30th through May 2nd, 2010 will mark the third anniversary of the 2007 tornado, and I'm privileged and honored to be but a small part of it. The OneCleanWorld Foundation has donated 500 copies of my first book Clean: The Humble Art of Zen-Cleansing to Greensburg/GreenTown to distribute to every household and local business, and in June I'll be flying out for a book-signing but more importantly, to give a presentation on how to keep their LEED-certified green buildings green by cleaning "cleanly" without using any of the toxins or pollutants found in most commercial cleaners. A green town deserves a way to clean green that won't introduce contaminants and impurities into the indoor and outdoor eco-environments they've so carefully erected. (My MyKindOfClean series of books are user-friendly and easy to follow, and all my recipes for "clean" green cleaning rely exclusively on only five natural ingredients: baking soda, salt, borax, white vinegar, and lemons.)
The Memorial Day weekend, however, will be a time for the community to stop, reflect, pay tribute to the past, feel grateful for the present, and plan for the future. The residents of Greensburg are very happy to have a downtown again, and the grand opening of the new hospital in March was huge and proved to be a proud moment for them all. Once the new school opens in August, the basic infrastructure will pretty much be in place. Roads are being paved, trees are being planted, and new small businesses are opening or re-opening.
There is a great deal of fundraising going on for future projects as well, such as the Twilight Theatre (a movie house that will do double-duty as the school's auditorium), the Kiowa County Commons (to house the public library, historical society, and state-of-the-art media center), the Big Well Museum (designed by Ralph Appelbaum, BNIM and Project Explore), and GreenTown's second Eco-Home, the Meadowlark House (built based on the winning design from a worldwide architecture competition that will be constructed from highly sustainable German technology).
The city continues to work hard to attract green industry to town. Citizens have formed Greensburg 2020, in an effort to build the population to 2,020 in ten years. Further, a new group called the Spirit of Greensburg Committee has formed whose mission is to bring big musical acts to town to raise money for underfunded projects -- the first act will be country music legend George Jones in concert on the anniversary weekend.
It's taken literally thousands of individuals and hundreds of companies, however, to have made the rebuild possible. Volunteers (from churches, colleges, high schools, civic groups, etc.) gave and are still giving their blood, sweat and tears; and federal, state, and local governmental entities (including USDA-Rural Development, National Renewable Energy Lab -- a program of the U.S. Department of Energy, FEMA, Kansas Housing Resources Corporation, and the Kansas Governor's Office) have issued grants for the rebuild.
Private foundations (e.g. Schmidt/Manlier Family) and an astounding number of corporations such as AT&T, Sun Chips, Kodak, Clorox, Office Depot, the Big Green Box, Sears, Mother Earth News, Discovery Communications, Natural Home magazine, Honda, and General Motors) along with smaller green-tech businesses such as Caroma USA, Viega, PF Waterworks, TADgreen Inc., and Bauer Power, as well as private individuals (most notably Leonardo DiCaprio) have donated much of the capital needed to undertake this monumental project. Further, Kiowa County United, a not-for-profit organization started by a group of local business owners raised over $1 million and built the retail center with nine stores as well as a prototype for an affordable green building.
On the anniversary weekend, at the grand opening of the Silo Eco-Home, my Clean book will also be distributed in the Green Visitors Center. The OneCleanWorld Foundation (OCWF) is eagerly participating in Greensburg's third Anniversary Weekend activities because it strongly supports the town's decision to re-invent itself as a green, eco-friendly and sustainable community. The purpose of the OneCleanWorld Foundation is to support, raise awareness of, and encourage eco- and sustainability projects in the United States and abroad through grants, technical assistance and/or micro-financing in the areas of education and outreach, advocacy and public health, and building or enhancing green economies and infrastructures.
In the press release announcing the gift, Richard Haymes, OCW Foundation's founder remarked, "The OneCleanWorld Foundation supports the eco-innovations of Greensburg and joins with those who made it all possible...we commend the people of Greensburg, Kansas for their grit and determination to overcome a terrible tragedy, their foresight to rebuild with green dwellings and green industry, for their growing green economy, and for their mindful rebuilding of their basic infrastructure."
For the sake of full disclosure, I'm a sustaining member of the OneCleanWorld Foundation and sit on the board of directors. A portion of the royalties from sales of my MyKindOfClean series of books (sustainably printed by Sterling Publishing, New York/London) endows OCWF in perpetuity.
Again, the OneCleanWorld Foundation and I commend the people of Greensburg, Kansas for their true courage and determination to overcome their tragedy, their foresight to rebuild with truly green dwellings and public spaces, to attract green industries, to encourage their growing green economy, for their mindful rebuilding of their basic infrastructure, and for being a living example of what can be achieved when we take that leap into environmental sustainability.
Like the immortal character Dorothy Gale from Kansas in the children's classic The Wizard of Oz learned, there's no place like home. Bravo Greensburg!
To make a tax-deductible donation to the OneCleanWorld Foundation, please send your gift to: OCWF, 232A Fourth Street, 2nd floor, Jersey City, NJ 07302 or contact info@OneCleanWorld.org
To make a tax-deductible donation to Greensburg/GreenTown, visit their website at www.greensburggreentown.org
To purchase any of the MyKindOfClean books that support OCWF, visit B&N.com and Amazon.]]>Halloween? Bah, Humbug!tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2009:/theblog//3.3373422009-10-29T18:12:46-04:002011-05-25T14:30:27-04:00Michael DeJonghttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-dejong/
Do you remember growing up and the only thing to worry about on Halloween was getting an apple with razor blades in it? First of all, what an Urban Myth. All one kid needed to do was point out which house gave out the fatal fruit, and the entire neighborhood would have been out with pitchforks and flaming torches. And, if anyone on my Halloween route had the nerve to stick a piece of fruit in my Trick-or-Treat bag (razor blades or not) I'd have put it in a paper bag, lit the bag on fire, rang the bell and ran. What kid wants fruit?
So now we come to my fun-sucking dilemma. For the sake of full disclosure, I feel it's important for me to admit that as an adult I hate Halloween. The thought of being in a parade or at a party with drunken strangers in masks is like some people's irrational fear of clowns--it just gives me the willies.
But Halloween, everyone says, is for the kids. And let's suppose for the sake of this blog that that's true. Here is how I see it:
1. Jack-o-Lanterns: Thanks to years of Martha Stewart one-upping herself each Halloween, carving a traditional buck-toothed, triangle-eyed pumpkin just doesn't cut it anymore--it's your kid's equivalent to having last year's X-Box games. So, one either has to have the carving talents of Rodin, or else Mommy goes to the big box store and buys one of those foam "pumpkins" made in China from God-knows-what toxic petrochemicals. The carbon footprint of making, packing, and flying that fake gourd alone could prevent us from ever reaching 350. And now that we no longer carve real pumpkins from the pumpkin patch for fear of being accused of All Hallows Eve banality, we lose out on one of Mother Nature's greatest once-a-year secrets--scraping the pumpkin seeds out, rinsing them off, sprinkling them with salt and then baking them at a low temperature until they are toasty, golden, and crunchy delicious. Foam pumpkins don't even come with foam seeds.
2. Costumes: Here, you have your two types -- Mommy-made or store-bought. Mom-made costumes are going the way of the horse and buggy, 8-track tapes, and analog clocks. First, most of the mom's I know, if they are lucky enough to be employed, are the second breadwinner in the family, and are too exhausted to sew and dye fabrics that any self-respecting six-year old wouldn't be caught dead in. Show of hands--how many moms out there even know how to sew or have a sewing machine? And when did "What Tiffany is wearing for Halloween" become the equivalent of the Bar Mitzvah wars? Now stores of all stripes have racks and racks of adorable, perfectly appointed ready-made costumes that can put mom back anywhere from $15 to $50--and in today's economy, that ain't hay. But what's worse is that unlike pajamas that were mandated to be flame retardant years ago, the materials that most store-bought witches, ghost and goblin get-ups are made from can't be made fire retardant--100% nylon, acetate and acrylic tend to resist flame retarding, and foreign made materials often have unknown chemicals in them to enhance bulk or texture. These "unknowns" can cause problems. So not only isn't junior's Frankenstein or Spiderman costume not flame retardant, it's also off-gassing into his poor lil' pores.
3. Mask or Make-Up? Neither is a good choice for a little one. Remember when you were a kid and you got one of those hard plastic masks with the rubber band that went over your ears and behind your head? And do you remember how wonderful it smelled when you had it on--kind of a kid's version of new car smell. Well, now we know that when plastic smells, watch out--there's toxins in them thar' masquerades. And let's say that you are one of the lucky mom's with kids still young enough to go for the bed sheet-turned-into-ghost costumes. No sewing required, just a scissor to cut out a hole for the head, and to trim off the bottom so baby Justin doesn't trip over himself trying to carry all his trick-or-treat booty home. Well, little Justin can't just have his everyday head sticking out of that ghostly sheet--who would that scare? So, mommy either buys ghoul make-up at the local drug store, or pulls out her old discarded Revlon, Cover Girl, Maybelline, etc., from the bottom of some forgotten bathroom drawer, and paints the kid's face. For anyone concerned about the chemical contents of make-up, I refer you to Womens Voices for the Earth's report, "Pretty Scary," about the heavy metal content in make-up made specifically for kids at Halloween time (http://www.womenandenvironment.org/pdf/PrettyScary_Oct2009.pdf) as well as their report "A Little Prettier" as part of their ongoing Campaign for Safe Cosmetics investigations and lobbying efforts to make the adult cosmetics industry manufacture healthier products (http://safecosmetics.org/search.php).
And if you wanted to be creative in a retro sort of way, and make a mask out of a brown paper bag, try and find one made from either recycled pre- and post-consumer waste or one made with paper approved by the Forest Stewardship Council. Most are still made from virgin trees.
4. The Booty: And even though the "razors in the apples" scare has died down, parents warn their children to not eat anything that is not store-bought and wrapped in its original foil or plastic hermetically sealed protective coating. Industrial sized bags are now available for sale at every big box store and large supermarket. As a kid, my favorite Halloween treat was Candy Corn--and not the yellow, orange and white ones either--no sir--the neighbors that gave out handfuls of the yellow, orange and brown Candy Corn were my heroes. Today, loose candy is immediately thrown away when mom and dad investigate the contents of the night's take. So we're left with individually wrapped miniatures of 60s classic candy bars, and by the time little Allison can unwrap one of those impervious Tyvak-like wrappers, her arms, already tired from carrying the haul home, are numb, and her little fingers are frostbitten from the sudden drop in temperature between 6:00 and 10:00 pm, and she just thinks, the heck with it, I'll handle this in the morning, only to wake and find mommy and daddy sprawled out on the living room floor in a massive sugar crash from having eaten all the goodies. It's probably for the better because mommy has already indoctrinated 10-year-old Allison that she is too fat and if she wants to be the next Miley Cyrus she had best be dieting and not eating all that sugary crap.
5. TPing: Oh the days when throwing roll after roll of toilet paper into the neighbor's tree brought endless joy, and belly-aching, roll-on-the-ground laughter. However, for the 21st Century eco-minded, not just any TP will do anymore. And since the only eco-friendly TP readily available is Seventh Generation, at $2.99 or more a roll, this "trick" is not only wasteful, but becomes a major investment.
But never fear, another Halloween will soon come and go, and lest we even try to hold onto our memories of All Hallows Eve, three weeks ago, the candy aisles were already empty, the only costumes left on the racks were the ripped and rejected, and ever since Columbus Day, it's been beginning to look a lot like Christmas!
Bah, Humbug!]]>40 Years Old and All I Get is This Damn Rainbow Flag?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2009:/theblog//3.2220862009-06-29T16:16:22-04:002011-11-17T09:02:45-05:00Michael DeJonghttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-dejong/Daughters of Belitis and The Mattachine Society and then there are even scholars who are studying those scholars. But in last week's New York Times, Jeremy W. Peters (who did not disclose his sexual orientation or gender identity) wrote an article, "Why There's No King or Steinem for the Gay Movement" -- which is a very profound question to pose, but he missed some very fine points in arriving at his conclusion. (Oh, and for the purposes of full disclosure, my sexual orientation is gay and my gender identity is male -- in case you were wondering.)
Even disregarding the fact that Dr. King, in early adulthood, was a highly charismatic, prescient preacher within an African-American society with high regard for the Church; and forgetting the fact that the Women's Rights Movement in its beginnings was primarily a white, middle and upper middle class movement that purged lesbian members and wasn't all that involved in the rights of women-of-color; the modern "Gay Rights Movement" has had and still has racism, classism, misogyny, ageism, and trans-phobia at its core.
It is only in the last few years or so, that most so-called gay leaders have even embraced the fact that it was primarily a group of angry transgender and cross-dressing women who beat back New York City's "Finest" that historic night at the Stonewall Bar, though gays and lesbians immediately appropriated that day to mark the beginning of their civil rights movement, pushing our trans sisters and brothers way to the back of the line. Even during the battles with the US Department of Justice over the Federal Hate Crimes Bill, our most (in)famous Gay Human Rights organization was vehemently against including anyone who wasn't gay or lesbian. Our own "leaders" had originally and deliberately excluded the transgender community for fear that their inclusion would be too radical for passage, in spite of the fact that transgender individuals are the most vulnerable in our community to hate crimes just because of who they are or who they are perceived to be by their perpetrators.
Lesbians, gay men, transgender women and men, and bisexual, intersex, two-spirited, and sexual orientation- and gender identity-questioning people are everywhere, in every community, in every socio-economic strata, every religion or no organized religion, every race, every age, every gender, every ethnicity, every state of the Union, etc. And yet, as if a microcosm of the country in which we were raised, regardless of how progressive we professed to be, we mimicked the patriarchal pecking order of the way our country "values" members of society -- middle class white men first, white women second, those aged 25-45 over seniors, people of color next (with their own pecking order, including those who, for instance, are men who have sex with other men but do not consider themselves gay), bisexual men and women as a disdained or joked about sub-group who could "have their cake and eat it, too," and transgender women and men relegated to invisibility. And it is disingenuous to talk about the LGTB community without speaking about the convenience of "the closet," and our ability to compartmentalize ourselves within it..."out" to our gay friends but not at work or to our families; "out" to our friends and families but not at work, etc. If polled, it would be interesting to see how many "Queer" people consider themselves 100% out -- even I am reluctant to hold my partner of 20 years' hand in some areas. And unlike African-Americans or women, Queer people, in order to live a genuine life, have to "come out" every day, in any number of social, business, family, classroom, and congregational situations.
Therefore, unlike the Civil Rights Movement, in which African-Americans had/have no closet in which to safely hide, yet have a long and strong history of Church-based leadership; and unlike the Feminist Movement which demanded equal pay for equal work, and gave permission to mothers to leave the "closet of the home" to step into the workplace, the so-called "Gay Rights Movement" has so many competing interests, that to even have a rally on the Mall in D.C. has taken on the high level of diplomatic negotiations of a Palestinian-Israeli peace settlement (and I mean no offense to either Palestinians or Israelis, I'm just trying to make a dramatic point with flair!)
Even today, if you studied the leadership of our national lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender organizations, you would be hard-pressed to find a person of color serving as the executive director or board chair of a group that wasn't primarily focused on Queer people of color; few women of any race in executive director positions of non-lesbian-specific groups, etc. Furthermore, you will also find a great disparity in the annual budgets for national lesbian groups, people of color organizations, and gender identity groups as compared to those of groups considered fighting for supposed "white" gay rights.
Even though we are a homosexual movement, there is little to no homogeneity among us or our purported leaders; whereas, in the Civil Rights and Women's Rights movements, it was the homogeneity and common cause that moved them from success to success (in-fighting, splinter groups, conflicting ideologies, notwithstanding).
If asked, I could give you a list of my top 12 Queer leaders, and the list is diverse in every way. But unfortunately, 12 people are a "cabinet" yet we have no Mr. or Ms. President. But on the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots, I want to publicly acknowledge the trannies and drag queens who finally said, "enough is enough!" and rather than allowing the police raid to cart them away as usual, fought back, fought hard, fought proudly, and gave isolated gay kids like me the notion that not only were there others out there like me, but also gave me the chutzpah to challenge my psychiatrist at the time that I wasn't "sick," three years before the American Psychiatric Association changed its definition of homosexuality.
]]>Eco-Hitchedtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2009:/theblog//3.2044752009-05-18T12:00:37-04:002011-05-25T13:25:21-04:00Michael DeJonghttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-dejong/ This is a major step forward in building the kind of clean energy economy that will reduce America's dependence on foreign oil. I once again call on Congress to send me legislation that places a market-based cap on carbon pollution, which will then drive intent for the kind of innovation and dynamic, new, clean energy economy that can create jobs and new businesses all across America...this is an example of the extraordinary productivity that we're seeing over in the House right now.
The Sierra Club, the oldest, largest, and most influential grassroots environmental organization in the United States, also chimed in with their support of the legislation,
Chairmen Waxman and Markey have done heroic work in reaching agreement on the Energy and Commerce Committee around a comprehensive clean energy and climate plan, a critically important milestone that has faced seemingly insuperable obstacles. Their leadership has been truly remarkable. But it is clear that Big Oil, Big Coal and other polluters are still holding out for a Congressional bailout. They will continue to try to riddle this legislation with loopholes, water it down, and load it up with hundreds of billions of dollars in giveaways. They don't want it to deliver a recovery fueled by the clean energy jobs that America needs. These polluters are trying to strangle the clean energy economy in its cradle, steal the benefits of the clean energy future from the American people, and keep us addicted to oil and dirty coal. As this bill moves through the many remaining steps in the legislative process, we will work to strengthen this bill, so that it meets President Obama's challenge to Congress and the American people. Only a bill which accomplishes these three things can really jump-start the green recovery, build the clean energy future, and end our addiction to oil and coal.
That's very powerful support for the President and the legislation coming from the Sierra Club -- and they are to be commended -- but which side of their public mouth are they speaking, and why should we continue to care what the Sierra Club has to say?
As America's most influential naturalist, conservationist and self-described "poetico-trampo-geologist-botanist and ornithologist-naturalist," John Muir, considered "The Father of our National Parks," "The Wilderness Prophet," and "The Citizen of the Universe," founded the Sierra Club, and once stated, "When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe."
Because of its pedigreed origins, its longevity, and longstanding level of respectability even when tree-hugging wasn't chic, we've somehow come to honor and value what the Sierra Club has come to stand for, and what they say and what they do, because they've held such a high place of eco-distinction for almost a century.
But unfortunately, as Muir predicted, even his beloved Sierra Club wasn't immune to "hitching" itself to one thing forgetting how that thing was "hitched" to everything else in the Universe. Last year, the Sierra Club "got hitched" to the Clorox Corporation and gave public support to their "less-bad" line of eco-cleaning products, Clorox Green Works™. In return, Clorox Corporation (which in 2007 received multiple fines from the Environmental Protection Agency) as seen on their website for Green Works™, proudly and financially supports the Sierra Club. You'll not only find the Sierra Club logo slapped on every Green Works™ product, but, you'll also see the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's "Design for the Environment" logo proudly displayed as well -- yes, the same EPA that issued multiple environmental fines against the Clorox Corporation. I know that politics makes for strange bedfellows, I just never had any idea how big that bed was!
OK, sure, Green Works'™ claim is that all its products are 99 percent "natural." But even if you found a complete ingredients listing on any Green Works'™ products, on average, 85% have never been tested -- "natural," "green," or not. In my opinion, their "natural" theory of safety is a "greenwashing" of major proportions, just to win a niche market of loyal consumers who are actually looking for products to use so that their families, pets, neighbors, and planet are safe -- and the Clorox Corporation has the money and power to exploit that market. What really gets to me, just because of the beautiful irony of it, is that the Green Works™ web site talks all about being "natural," and yet every flower photographed is fake or computer generated.
Now here is the remarkable part. No matter how much they promote, market, advertise, pay for endorsements, and somehow even got the government agency that two years ago sued them to now sponsor them, the entire eco-cleaning market is about $50 million. And yet, for fiscal year 2008, Clorox Corporation reported net earnings of $461 million from manufacturing all of its non-eco-friendly (and mostly petrochemical-based) chlorine bleaches; air fresheners; aluminum foil; auto-care products; über-poisonous bathroom and household cleaners; artificially infused scented candles; cat litter; cleaning utensils; disinfecting sprays; disinfecting wipes; fabric refreshers; environmentally unsound insecticides; plastic storage and garbage bags (which by the way, can take 1,000 years to decompose); plastic containers and wraps; water-filtration systems and filters (they bought Britta); waxes, and among other things -- yes -- their new-fangled "less bad" brand of "natural" Green Works™ cleaning products for which they receive the smallest portion of their revenue. (Cute band-aid, wouldn't ya say? "Pay no attention to the poisons behind the curtain -- look at our clean and shiny "natural" products instead, 'cause that's what we're pushing this year.")
And now, once again, that "hitched" Universe has come into play. At the time of the original endorsement, the folks at the Sierra Club thought their shared tactics were a win-win for customers, industry, and the environment. Fast-forward a few months, however, and we see environmental groups -- including The Sierra Club -- taking the giants of the Cleaning Industrial Complex -- including Clorox Corporation -- to task. Biting the hand that feeds you... ouch!
President Obama needs the Senate to pass his Environmental legislation so that his green-economy plans can begin in earnest. I hope that the Sierra Club continues to support the new proposed bill more enthusiastically than they have the "greenwashing" efforts of their shot-gun bride, Clorox Corporation.
When we try to peg the Sierra Club -- as of late, why do they seem to be hitched to just about anything in the Universe? Uhm? Weird karma, wouldn't ya' say? John Muir must be spinning!
]]>Mother's Daytag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2009:/theblog//3.2006042009-05-08T18:55:07-04:002011-05-25T13:20:20-04:00Michael DeJonghttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-dejong/
~The Golden Girls
We all get one -- a mother that is -- and it's no surprise that Mother's Day is one of the most commercially successful of U.S. holidays.
What drives it? Is it guilt? When we recognize our female parents for their often under-appreciated responsibilities of raising offspring by toiling away to our benefit with steady and selfless love and support, can't we do it without being commercial? But in recognition of all that she did/does/will do/might do, etc., on this special day, we can pay her tribute with a bit of eco-this and eco-that -- potted flowers, herbs or decorative vegetation that can be planted in the garden, organic chocolate, socially responsible bling made from blood-free diamonds, shells or recycled materials, truly organic beauty products, or even soy or beeswax candles scented with essential oils with non-lead wicks.
But unfortunately, the flowers will soon fade and become compost. And in today's economy, the rock might just end up in hock. And her backside (along with yours too, buddy) will only get a size larger from all that chocolate, eco or not!
But Mother Nature is everyone's automatic second mom, personified as female for thousands of years and representing sustenance and nurturing -- so it's quite fitting that on Mother's Day we consider both our mother and Mother Nature as well.
Among those acknowledging the good deeds by women on behalf of Mother Earth, are the WINGS World Quest Women of Discovery Awards. WINGS was organized a decade ago to demonstrate how women explorers and field scientists are under-served, and sought to remedy the sad fact that young people often lack the curiosity to explore the natural world.
This special honor recognizes outstanding contributions to our general knowledge in critical environmental areas, while providing important funding for continued research and expeditions. What a remarkable way to acknowledge environmental advances, to exemplify the work of some genius women, girls, sisters, aunts, grandmothers and mothers, and to showcase the possibilities for women to work as scientists.
On Mother's Day, whether your mom is a scientist, a geologist a paleontologist, or just a plain ol' scrubologist, laundry-ologist or dustologist, take a moment and thoughtfully acknowledge her. Remember, she's the one who took you on your first 9-month environmental exploration.
]]>Risky Runoff: From Fish-Roe to Ritalin (My Reaction to "Poisoned Waters," a Recent PBS Frontline Story)tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2009:/theblog//3.1937162009-05-04T16:40:01-04:002011-05-25T13:15:26-04:00Michael DeJonghttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-dejong/
As the recent PBS Frontline story, "Poisoned Waters" so vividly brought home, once pure and pristine, our extraordinary natural treasure of beautiful shorelines, waterways, estuaries, lakes, rivers and ponds continue to be polluted by the home and industrial waste that we persistently both knowingly as well as unwittingly contribute to -- so much so that it now severely threatens our own health and that of the flora and fauna with which we share our planet. Wreaking havoc on global well being, with animals and individuals becoming ill daily from contact with contaminated water eco-systems, without dramatic and fundamental action, it's a problem that'll only continue to grow exponentially. Point blank -- our water systems are being altered to the point of no-return by our own selfish human impact.
Often invisible to the naked eye, the most destructive elements to our planet's life's blood, our water, are hidden, secret, and malignant -- agricultural pollution and excrement in runoff waters, chemicals from home waste treatment systems, everyday cleaning supplies gurgling down our drains and flushing down our toilets, lawn care products leaching into the ground water -- plastics, lubricants, petro-fuels, body lotions, bug repellents, deodorants, soaps and even the decomposition of the soles of our shoes as we walk and jog all adding to the problem. With dangers to everyone and everything living and growing now being found in water -- we all stand to be negatively impacted.
The particulates from our own medicated bodily fluids are so fine that there are no water processing plants in the world that can trap them, and so, to be perfectly frank, your neighbor's Viagra, your daughter's birth control, your uncle's HIV/AIDS medications, your grandmother's diabetes drugs, your minister's pain medications, your teacher's thyroid supplements, your dog's flea and tick protection, etc., are all ending up in micro doses in the water we all brush our teeth with every day.
The run-off from some agricultural livestock is so densely polluted that it creates dead zones in water masses that not only cannot sustain life, but also kill any life forms that unfortunately find their way into their morass.
Through our toilets or from our tap, we're discovering that the most refined water processing doesn't always remove the new synthetic forms of pollutants, and with more and new kinds of contaminants being found in water, we no longer know what's lingering in the H2O we drink and bath in. It's our failure to monitor and control what gets into our water that haunts this life force all over our planet.
Any investment in environmental science and the actions of well-meaning politicians and civic groups may solve some of these problems, but until we begin to seriously tackle what are even today insurmountable issues, this same "bureaucracy" may also indefinitely continue to keep the purity of our water tied up in a giant toxic bow of red tape.
The time is urgent and the stakes are high. The danger signs are everywhere and we have mountains of choices that need to be made. There's no question in my mind that we all need to make small and simple changes because, unfortunately -- we're all polluters -- and it's our shared responsibility to no longer be such.
I suggest that the answers lie within each and every one of us. Daily mindful actions carried out by each and every person -- all of us stepping up and taking responsibility to restore what we've already lost or are about to lose forever -- one person at a time, one family at a time, one block at a time, one neighborhood at a time, one city at a time and so on can and will make a difference. As oft quoted, the late anthropologist Margaret Meade emphatically stated, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."
But here is where paralysis sets in -- the point where we all become deer caught in the headlights, unable to move this way or that, doomed to the fatal onslaught of our own making. We've been taught to believe that it's only the powerful, the wealthy, the political, the connected that have any real control over our lives and our actions. But again, the perceptive voice of Rachel Carson can powerfully move us beyond our complacency: "Only within the moment of time represented by the present century has one species -- man -- acquired significant power to alter the nature of his world."
So conversely it should also be true that in our present century, only our species can acquire the significant power to reverse the nature of this world for the positive. As the mindful, free-thinking, creative individuals we were born to be, please consider what Rachel Carson tried to instill in us 60 years ago: "If I had influence with the good fairy who is supposed to preside over the christening of all children, I should ask that her gift to each child in the world be a sense of wonder so indestructible that it would last throughout life." The truth of the matter is however, that somewhere along the way we each self-destroy that power and validate it to "the powers that be.
Take just a few steps back and fully understand that until only 50 years ago, almost every chemical found under almost every kitchen and bathroom sink in the developed world today existed only in chemistry labs -- and now they are part and parcel of products that have been marketed to us as "new and improved," "germ-fighting," "antiseptic," and "essential" to modern life. So when asked to consider what you, as one mere individual can do to strengthen the environment, consider some of the following and surely you will tap into your own creative nature and develop other mindful adaptations.
For instance, the next time you're cleaning your kitchen or bathroom, consider sprinkling baking soda onto your nonporous bath and kitchen surfaces instead if chlorine bleach, cutting a fresh lemon in half and using the fruit side as your scrubby pad, wiping down the surfaces and then rinsing them with freshest tap water available (micro-Viagra notwithstanding!) [Note: Also never use anything acidic on marble or similar surfaces. No lemony fresh scent, but no pock-marked counters either.]
You can also do the same thing to your body. (What a bill of goods we've been sold by the cosmetics industry!) More than 85% of the active ingredients in personal grooming products have never been tested for safety, and fewer than 5% of ingredients need, by law, to be listed on the package. And that's cradle to tomb -- from baby shampoo to denture cream. And what doesn't get absorbed by our own bodies gets washed down into the water supply and absorbed by the babies and elderly down the block, the fish and fauna at the beach, etc.
But by thinking mindfully, acting safely, and respecting all manner of life on our planet, you can achieve the same results for less money, less packaging, and less pollution. For instance, by creating a three-to-one paste of baking soda and H2O and massaging it gently all over your face and body, your skin will glow with a new found polish by eliminating those dead skin cells, leaving your skin soft, tender and smooth. Rinse well with warm water and allow your skin to air dry. Do it every day, and watch your transformation.
Tired of spending $30, $50, or $100 on the newest wonder youth cream at the cosmetics counter? You can revive your skin with spritzes of natural olive oil combined with water. Mix one-third olive oil to two-thirds water in a small, clean (recycled) spray bottle to give yourself an exhilarating after-bath all-over body moisturizing treatment. Let it soak in without towel drying.
The above all work well, are super-affordable and harmless to you, to your kids, to the fish and fowl, and to the environment. By simply taking a moment, musing over what has brought us to this toxic abyss, and channeling Ms. Carson, you can start a new eco-movement of your own, do your part for this and future generations, and preserve the precious water systems that would otherwise be altered by your own human impact.
]]>The Hypocrisy of Greentag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2009:/theblog//3.1893832009-04-21T11:36:00-04:002011-05-25T13:15:26-04:00Michael DeJonghttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-dejong/
With Earth Day under our proverbial feet, many consider their "green-ness." With the promise of a "green" economy as a growth economy, the majority of consumers agree with the popularity of "green," as more and more venders offer these kinds of alternatives. With more information now than ever before available on how to become or go "green" on television, cable or on the Internet, many understand the recognizable benefits to individuals and society on the whole.
Studies like the ones offered by the green initiative at NBC-Universal (which, by the way, has the first-wind powered station and, during Earth Week 2009, will be donating 10,000 trees to local parks and schools throughout the U.S. in partnership with the Arbor Day Foundation; and for full disclosure, I used to write as Mr. Green for their "Ask Mr. Green" column on their GreenIsUniversal site) claim that three-quarters of those surveyed believe "'green' is good for the economy" because it reduces waste, increases sustainability, creates jobs, saves money, and leaves a healthy economy and environment for future generations.
Everyone knows that buying and selling is good for the economy. But by buying "green," consumers are purchasing stuff not just because they need it -- they're buying eco-goods because they're also considered to be good for the planet. Of late, many consumers have even boycotted companies or products because of their undesirable policies and practices -- compared to a growing number of individuals who recommend environmentally responsible products or services to friends and family.
Hoping that environmental awareness will eventually convince people to buy "green" products, manufacturers now produce products that eco-savvy shoppers supposedly want. Granola cruncher or not, to some, "green" isn't just about a carbon footprint and rain forests, it's also about social responsibility and being aware of how businesses affect the environment, our society, and our future resources.
Unfortunately, Earth Day for many has become yet another narcoleptic occasion to enact pointless environmental rituals while denouncing the greed and excesses they also find themselves ankle deep in. (President Obama is commemorating Earth Day this year with a trip to Iowa, one of the largest wind energy production states in the country. Perhaps he might also inspire us away from our greedy, over-consumptive, egotistical selves, organizing us to make a personal sacrifice for the greater good.)
Although many sing dirges to global warming, I'll guess that few really care to do anything. If they did they might start whistling another tune by starting small by making mindful alterations to their purchasing habits, minimizing travel, changing light bulbs, insulating/caulking homes, and purchasing used stuff instead of new when available. Only by starting small and personal can someone begin to grow and work up to noticeable improvements.
With the "green" industry growing -- one of few that is -- it's a marvelous opportunity for us to grow bigger and better. For this Earth Day, don't use meaningless gestures to show the world that you care, but instead, plant seeds that show how you also take care.]]>Eco-Extrava-gay-ancestag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2009:/theblog//3.1853652009-04-12T16:46:10-04:002011-05-25T13:15:26-04:00Michael DeJonghttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-dejong/
without bearing the humiliation of having to wear last season!"
~A classic Absolutely Fabulous moment, when Edina refuses to give her Vivienne Westwood clothes away to the homeless.
Next to the faded glory of black and white Hollywood 30s and 40s celluloid imagery, who is more associated with luxe than gay men and women? And why not? Many find employment in the industries that create the illusion-of-opulence, and they're often also the creative forces that invent and market the stuff as well (even those celluloid classics!) And because many (but certainly not all) gay men and women have disposable incomes, many partake in these goodies, too.
But to many -- gay and straight alike -- "sustainable luxury" is, however, a term that's as oxymoronic as the phrase "open secret" or "army intelligence." The word luxury implies the excesses and waste of the fashion industry, driving women of means to pay their personal shoppers to "jump" the waiting line to embrace that outrageously expensive "Bag du Jour" to dangle casually from their Social X-Ray elbows. (Truth be told, the extravagance of most label-laden handbags could float an average American household for a month or two.)
In an industry-wide turn-around, however, many high-end labels are trying to change their luxury goods businesses by "double air kissing" new environmental and labor standards. In a cultural shift, their customers who up until recently associated "green" with "granola" and "hippie" are now insisting that the bling and glamour they buy be made eco-sensitively and with a conscience, and in fact, recent marketing studies have shown that many posh and not-so-posh folks are now willing to pay more for goods labeled "green."
Even while our economy slips down the crapper, luxury brands are probing the zeitgeist for new reasons why you and I should buy their wares. And with more and more folks -- gay, straight or on the spectrum -- yearning for genuine eco-values like effectiveness, honesty, transparency, purity and even hipness, many brands are making attempts at being socially responsible.
In an industry that typically tosses away last year's rags for this year's rags, the new fashion paradigm now also takes responsibility for things previously left to the government -- improved working conditions and salaries, fair trade, "clean" diamonds rather than "blood" diamonds, etc. And although the luxury market is a bit late in adopting social responsibility standards, as taste-makers and innovators, their new approach could potentially have a bountiful impact. Additionally, because most are so profitable, high-end brands also have the cash to implement reduced energy consumption, green-up their means of production, buy carbon offsets, and redesign packaging to be more environmentally friendly.
Sure, some might call "sustainable luxury" just another trend or even the "greenwashing" of yet another industry. And if that turns out to be the case, it's up to us as consumers to hold their perfectly pedicured feet to the fire! Today's critical need for "cradle-to-cradle" sustainability at every level of society has grown beyond the too-easily dismissible "tree-hugger" imagery of just a few years ago. Furthermore, unlike many societal ills that primarily strike those that would be classified as "the disadvantaged," the environmental problems we need to address affect every global citizen, regardless of their social standing. Put differently, the effects of global warming make us all disadvantaged.
Like health care, sustainability isn't for some and not others - it's our right. Saving the environment is up there in the pantheon of social values that ended slavery, that gave women the right to vote, that ended the Vietnam War, that forged the Civil Rights movement, that gave women choice, and that are also beginning to recognize marriage equality for gay men and lesbians -- the same creative force that brought us luxury in the first place.]]>Water, Water Everywheretag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2009:/theblog//3.1774412009-03-24T13:10:16-04:002011-05-25T13:10:22-04:00Michael DeJonghttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-dejong/
In one way or another, I've been an environmentalist my entire life (born of Dutch immigrant parents who found a use and re-use for everything.) I've just completed my third book on 'clean living,' and have been blogging about the environment for the past few years. It's my passionate "little hobby" that I thankfully get to do for several websites including The Huffington Post. I am a strong believer in speaking truth to power, and have tried to always keep this in the back of my mind in everything I write.
Just recently I was approached by a marketing firm whose motto reads, "Every brand has a story to tell. Those that tell it best, win." (Apparently, regardless of the truth.) It was their hope, that as an eco-blogger and author with a following, I would be interested in being the editor of, as well as creating my own supportive content for a new website they are custom-fitting for Nestlé Waters -- an online way of introducing a new line of bottled water with bottles made of more recycled plastic than other company's bottles.
After walking downstairs to talk to my partner about selling my soul, and about five seconds of research, I uncovered the following tag line created for Nestlé: "Bottled water is the most environmentally responsible consumer product in the world." (Say what?!?!?!)
So says the Swiss-based multi-national in an attempt to mislead the public on the true impact of their (or any company's) bottled waters. Making false and misleading statements regarding the environmental impact of their numerous labels of bottled water (72 or so at last count) to those who dig swigging the overly packaged H2O, seems par for this manufacturer's course. In case you didn't know, Nestlé Waters is the number one bottled water company worldwide and owns Perrier, Poland Springs, San Pellegrino, Panna, Contrex, Vittel, La Vie, Aquarel (with "a light and pleasant taste for the whole family" - huh??!!), and Nestlé Purelife (the leading bottled water sold in the developing world and the 2nd largest selling bottled water on earth).
Many water bottles manufactured by Nestlé (the same "good food-good life" company who's been known to sue small towns and parlay trade deals in secret) aren't often recycled at all. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency, the amount of plastic in municipal solid waste recycling plants has increased from less than 1 percent in 1960 to only 12 percent in 2006. Nestlé Waters itself states in its 2008 Corporate Citizenship Report that many of its own bottles end up in the solid waste-stream and that most of its bottles aren't recycled even though almost all beverage bottles are recyclable.
Nestlé Waters' latest eco-attempt is to use recycled plastic for its bottled waters (this being the main subject of the web site about which I was approached). Claiming a new "cradle-to-cradle" philosophy (and endorsement by William McDonough and Michael Braungart--unsubstantiated at the time of this writing) could ultimately prove to be more expensive, perhaps toxic, and -- in the end -- recycled plastic may not be the best material for bottling water in the first place.
Some might call it "green-washing," but when a company like Nestlé pipes-up about its unfounded environmental credentials with an attempt to address ecological concerns and to self-promote as a green steward, it's "super-GREEN-washing." Their disingenuous attempts to gain our trust are merely international marketing smoke and mirrors meant to exploit our super-brawny purchasing power.
By bottling water and then shipping it from here to kingdom-come, because it's now packaged in a thinner and "100% recyclable" bottle -- if it sits in a landfill, a trench, or a field -- it doesn't make it "eco!" Not to mention the environmental and carbon footprints involved in the manufacture and distribution of said bottles.
Often taking the lead in water policy-making through questionable lobbying, bottled water manufacturers like Nestlé ultimately need to be regulated and be held responsible for the quantity and quality of the water that they end up bottling, the pollution they make in the process, the pollution they leave behind, and the environmental impact on the communities they strong-arm for the "natural spring water" in the first place.
Bottled water, even from a super-slick eco-spinner like Nestlé, will forever be a massive waste of our collective resources. As a multi-national giant posing as a collective of local companies that contribute to the local good, that boasts of being self-accountable and self-regulating and transparent, maybe Nestlé itself needs to get its house in order. Not so that they can do business with us but, instead, for us to continue to do business with them.
Much like the motto of the marketing agency that approached me to create propaganda for Nestlé, perhaps every brand does indeed have a story to tell. But in this instance, if the story is a lie, no matter how well it's told, the brand might also just lose.
For more information visit: www.stopnestlewaters.org
P.S. Note to Nestlé: It's just water for God's sake. In most developed countries, it comes hot and cold from the tap and for those that are worried about the local purity of their H2O, there are always at-home filtering systems from faucet units to pitchers (skip the eco-inefficient under-the-counter models). If you really want to be the eco-Merlin of the world, take your ill-gotten profits and help the developing world you've been exploiting and build water systems to ensure that every village, slum, and ghetto where you've been peddling Nestlé Purelife has potable tap water and efficient sewage systems. Now that would be a story worth telling!
]]>The Dirty Word in Cleantag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2009:/theblog//3.1714642009-03-12T11:55:00-04:002011-05-25T13:05:20-04:00Michael DeJonghttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-dejong/
As the fog of today's cleaning products and eco-reality lifts, we begin to notice that times have changed and so have our gross (mis)perceptions. Today's modern woman is a high-def portrayal of a post-feminist stereotype -- a woman on the go, juggling family, health, career and home. She's desperately trying to keep up with Martha Stewart (and falling short), shuttling her kids to after-school activities, and still cleaning, only no longer while in heels.
Only fifty years ago, almost every chemical used in today's commercial cleaning products found under most kitchen and bathroom sinks, were only available in industrial chemical laboratories. But today's eco-savvy stay-at-home moms, househusbands and dads are growing more and more concerned about the use of these chemicals in their homes and kids' schools. They are seeking out safer, greener alternatives for cleaning because of their well-founded fears that the ingredients in common cleansers are contaminating their indoor environments.
These contaminants, among a laundry list of potential risks, can lead to respiratory diseases, negatively impact fetal and child development, and interfere with normal hormonal and reproductive functioning. According to the Toronto Indoor Air Conference of 1990, (Umm -- yes, it really was 19 years ago) as a result of a higher rate of exposure to toxic chemicals in common household products, women who are stay-at-home moms have a 54% higher death rate from cancer than those who work outside the home. Unless, of course, their work outside of the home is as a low wage hotel maid, waitress, or housecleaner, where their daily exposure to highly toxic chemicals is even greater.
Now, on behalf of the "Susie and Sam Homemakers" of the world, environmental groups are taking the giants of the Cleaning Industrial Complex to task, in an attempt to make obligatory the long-forgotten, and rarely enforced New York State law that requires disclosure of every chemical ingredient in all cleaning products. The 1976 law requires household and commercial cleaning companies selling their products in New York to file semi-annual reports with the state listing the chemicals contained in their cleansers and disclosing any company research on these chemicals' health and environmental risks and effects.
Hold onto your hats, ladies and gents -- Ajax Cleaners, Arm & Hammer, Bounce, Brillo, Calgon, Cameo Cleaners, Cascade, Cheer, Church and Dwight, Colgate-Palmolive, Dawn, Dermassage, Downy, Dreft, Dynamo, Electrasol, Era, Finish, Gain, Ivory, Joy, Kaboom, Lysol, Mr. Clean, Murphy's Oil Soap, Orange Glo Hardwood Floor Care, Orange Glo Wood Furniture Cleaner & Polish, OxiClean, Parsons' Ammonia, Procter & Gamble, Reckitt-Benckiser, Resolve, Scrub-Free Cleaners, SNOBOL Toilet Bowl Cleaner, Softsoap, Spray 'n Wash, Suavitel, Swiffer, Tide, Tom's of Maine (Aww...come on. Not crunchy-granola-imaged Tom's of Maine, too!), Vanish, and Woolite, are all being targeted in the class action suit because they did not respond to a request to disclose their ingredients, which is a legal requirement that until now, has gone unenforced.
According to the National Research Council, toxic information is unavailable for more than 80% of the chemicals in the products we use every day. Today, only a measly 1% of toxins get listed on labels because companies classify their ingredients as "trade secrets." But unfortunately, over the past 50 years more than 75,000 chemicals have been introduced into the environment with -- yes count them -- 300 synthetic chemicals now found in the bodies of almost every American man, woman, child and even newborn.
The Soap and Detergent Association is a one-hundred plus member trade association representing the $30 billion U.S. cleaning products market and -- oops -- it seems that they kinda' forgot to inform their brand loyal customers that their products might be killing them.
Do common cleaners have toxic ingredients? They might. They might not. But until we know for certain -- who here cares to continue to experiment with his or her own health or the health of their children?
]]>One Nation Under Democracytag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2009:/theblog//3.1671252009-02-17T14:24:32-05:002011-05-25T13:05:20-04:00Michael DeJonghttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-dejong/"L'enfer, c'est les autres."
("Hell is other people.")
--Jean-Paul Sartre
Regardless of the doctrine of "Separation between Church and State," faith has always been a guiding force in our nation's tradition. As a part of it, religion, and in particular, prayer is often offered at events -- Elk's Club dinners and locker room pre-game pep rallies, and the like, or tacitly with public displays of Yuletide crèches. To most, it hardly ever seems relevant to what party or religious affiliation they belong -- such proceedings are just a reason to gather and to silently (or noisily) speak with a higher power -- but then again, they are usually homogeneous gatherings condoned by the mores of the dominant community.
Through spirit and shared purpose, throughout our country's history, prayer breakfasts have drawn friends and neighbors (and political parties) together through times of hardship and trouble -- OK, there were those pesky Witch trials in Salem, but I digress. Since the first "official" prayer meeting of Dwight D. Eisenhower, Presidential Prayer Breakfasts have been occasions to bring together specific, powerful individuals for a moment of peace, goodwill and unity -- usually for those with similar backgrounds, ethnicities, gender and political beliefs of the serving President.
As our newly elected leader, Obama's hope and promise has been to unify rather than divide, and to get us all to understand (and put into practice) that -- regardless of our religious differences -- we can and should, through our direct actions, each give something of ourselves for the benefit of others, the betterment of our country, our world or our environment, and to promote a greater common good -- religious or otherwise. In addition to his political promises, these may in fact, also be his personal prayer for our nation.
As a response to his predecessor's religious-right pandering, and his "your either with us or with the terrorists" divisive tactics, and his unaccommodating, unyielding and non-introspective world view and policy-making, one might have thought that Obama would slant more towards the Constitutional First Amendment of Separation of Church and State, and forgo 60 years of Beltway Insider "Prayer Breakfasts" on principle alone. But instead, he attended the traditional prayer breakfast and said, "The goal of this office will not be to favor one religious group over another, or even religious groups over secular groups...and to do so without blurring the line that our founders wisely drew between church and state." (Isn't the image of our President attending a prayer breakfast somehow also blurring that line? But then again, he's the first President I can remember who ever publicly embraced those who do not embrace any religion at all, so who knows? Politics does indeed make strange bedfellows!)
As a result of our former President's being delusional enough to proudly tell us out loud that he had a direct line to Jesus, and peppering his speeches with religious extremist jingoisms, isn't the US the country where, for eight interminable years, extreme fundamentalist religious groups gained a Karl Rovian foot-hold on the Republican Party in an attempt to push our government and anyone among us who didn't fit their mold ("Love the sinner; hate the sin!") back to a more Puritanically-influenced world of America's past.
If I remember what I learned in my high school civics class correctly, in a democracy, the people -- whether they pray or not, and if they do pray, then no matter to whom -- have a voice through their elected representatives. So therefore, rather than speaking to one God at a prayer breakfast, Obama needs to be a voice that can speak to thousands of Gods (as well as no God) to truly represent the diversity of Americans that elected him. (Is anyone equipped or able to do that? Now that's a change I would hope for!)
Until Obama is able or willing to pray with those who follow Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Judaism, Sufism, Bahá'í, Confucianism, Jainism, Shinto, Scientology, Rastafarianism, Neopaganism, Wiccanism, atheism, agnosticism, etc., I hope that he'll break with the Prayer Breakfast tradition, and not do it at all. He came to change, not reenact, and he came to bring hope, not follow political traditions that have brought this country the closest thing I've ever seen to Hell.]]>A New "Green" Economytag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2009:/theblog//3.1652852009-02-11T14:30:00-05:002011-05-25T13:05:20-04:00Michael DeJonghttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-dejong/
And to that list we might also include fellow eco-activists equally concerned with rising crop shortages -- Sir Richard Branson, the high-flying tycoon who's trying to leave cleaner skies across the world; the president and founder of Farm Aid, Willie Nelson; Global Green USA's representative, Brad Pitt; the recipient of the Entertainment Industry Environmental Leadership Award, Woody Harrelson; and the Environmental Justice Foundation's "Save The Sea" spokesperson, "Mad Hatter" Johnny Depp.
But just what kinds of crops are causing such concern? Certainly there's corn, wheat, rice and soy, but add to that list the almighty, yet still illegal, "righteous bush," "giggle weed," "laughing grass," "catnip," "420," "ace," "diggidy," "hash," or "hydro." Ahhhh -- good old-fashioned marijuana.
Delivered as a bag, bowl or a bale and served up as a joint, spliff or roach, the above glitterati not only include a who's-who of dedicated politicians, multi-national moguls, Hollywood film stars, and global eco-activists, but also a list of confessed weed-whackers as well.
To that litany of the perma-fried or those simply compelled to either a toke, a drag or a hit, we can also add the illustrious former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill; the longest reigning monarch in English history, Queen Victoria; the thirty-fifth President of the United States, John F. Kennedy; the most lauded English poet and playwright, William Shakespeare; the brilliant American jazz trumpeter and singer, Louis Armstrong; the Spanish surrealist painter, Salvador Dali; the innovator of agricultural science himself, George Washington Carver; and -- the newest inductee -- the 14 career Olympic gold medalist, American swimmer and hero, Michael Phelps.
Sure, there are some who might think that allowing himself to be photographed while bingeing on a bong is a bit immature and probable cause for his particular brand of professional "no more brand endorsement" suicide. But cut the kid some slack!
From fellow herbal-enthusiast Lewis Carroll's "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland," we read, "The Caterpillar puffed [on his hookah] and said, 'So you think you're changed, do you?'" As if the insect were speaking directly to Phelps instead of Alice, Phelps fell through the looking-glass and was most certainly changed -- a three-month disqualification from official USA Swimming competitions, suspension of his training finances, and his "portrait on the box" contract from Kellogg's gone up in smoke. Kinda harsh. (Not the weed, the reaction.) One minute of videotaped indiscretion has automatically turned Phelps into a Frosted Flake.
But to all of the half-baked hypocritical inhalers our there (even some at Kellogg's, I'd venture to guess!), I submit the following:
"I inhaled frequently, that was the point!" (President Barack Obama).
"When I was in England, I experimented with marijuana a time or two." (Former US President, "I never inhaled" - Bill Clinton).
"You bet I did. And I enjoyed it!" (New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg).
In an economy quickly going down the toilet faster than a nickel bag when the police come a-knocking, decriminalized and government-sanctioned "ganja" could 'pot'-entially create more and literally 'green' jobs, add much needed tax revenues, and end the criminality and high-cost incarceration (inordinately of young black males) attached to its production, sale and consumption.
In an ideal world, the government's attitude towards marijuana should rise above blue-nosed public hysteria or so-called religious morality and rather, look to science, medicine and public health while pondering important lessons from history (like the great success of Prohibition -- not!). As the Administration develops strategic economic plans and "bale" outs -- they should consider including legalizing pot -- thereby removing the high stakes from our current reefer madness. But even though many throughout history have enjoyed it -- painters, playwrights, poets, Prime Ministers, Presidents, many a Joe the Plumber and his sidekick, Joe Six-Pack, or even just your ordinary, run-of-the-mill Olympic gold-medalist -- it seems that legalized "good times" are, at least for now, only a pipe dream.
]]>Shirt of Changetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2009:/theblog//3.1629402009-02-01T21:51:43-05:002011-05-25T13:00:22-04:00Michael DeJonghttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-dejong/
Take for instance Willie Loman's thread-bare suit in Death of a Salesman, Scarlet O'Hara's rags-to-fake-riches curtain dress from Gone with the Wind, Dorothy's ruby slippers from The Wizard of Oz, Anna's visual feast of lavish, sparkling jewels and silks spread across the screen in The King and I, the plain white flowing scarves worn by Peter O'Toole in Lawrence of Arabia, the shock of man-tailored pants worn by Kate Hepburn and Marlene Dietrich, Darth Vader's ominous black helmeted uniform from Star Wars, Sharon Stone's skimpy little number in Basic Instinct, or the vintage ill-fitting suit, extra-large shoes, bamboo cane, white shirt and uber-fastidious tie that so clearly defined the comedic genius of Charlie Chaplin. The fictional references are endless, and it's the clothes that made the icon. Take those fashions away from the characters, and most would be forgettable.
Dressed in a suit -- be it Charlie Chaplin, Coco Chanel, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Pee Wee Herman or George Bush -- clothes do make the man and/or woman. Even the most run-of-the-mill, off-the-rack men's suits consist of a jacket and trousers (and sometimes a vest) that are cut and tailored from the same fabric...it's "Men's Fashion" 101.
Different from suits, however, dress shirts come in a broad variety or materials and colors. Crafted of cotton broadcloth, tattersall, poplin, or oxford (or even, God-forbid, no-iron polyester) -- most have full-length openings from the neckline to the hem, buttons, a pocket, sleeves that cover all or part of the arm and since the second quarter of the 20th Century, all are topped with a variety of attached collars ranging in style from button-down, spread, tab, or wing.
Once laundered, to remove all the wrinkles, cotton dress shirts are groomed by treating them with starch and are then ironed. Like it or not -- commonly paired with a tie -- they're part of almost every white collar, blue collar or green collar workers' attire -- business suit or uniform.
During World War II, one of the most memorable icons and metaphors was the image of Rosie the Riveter -- in her blue-jean overalls, shirt sleeves rolled up past her elbow, muscles bared to demonstrate how women were helping the war effort at home as much as their men were on the battle field. "Roll up your sleeves and get to work" is still the slogan for solving problems, fixing mistakes, or brainstorming.
That's why it was so entirely refreshing to see President Barack Obama abandon one of his predecessor's regulations by deliberately not wearing his suit jacket in the Oval Office. More than just an air of informality, the image of a President in shirtsleeves (and not while clearing brush on a ranch) while in the room that is synonymous with Presidential power, he gave us the visual equivalent of Truman's "The Buck Stops Here!" Proving to be as articulate symbolically as he is oratorally, our new President gave us a visual that will serve as the iconic representation of what we've so long awaited - a roll up your sleeves, get your hands dirty, straight talking, action oriented, new breed of US leadership.
Much as Miss Scarlet's curtain-dress stood for her will to survive at all costs, Dorothy's ruby slippers were symbolic of unknown strengths, Lawrence of Arabia's white scarf a metaphor for his transcendence, the black cape and gleaming black helmet of Darth Vader epitomizing Dick Cheney -- umm, I meant to say -- evil, or Charlie Chaplin's Tramp a symbol of basic, decent humanity -- Obama's brilliant photo-op of him in a crisp white shirt sans jacket will come to symbolize a new Presidential power -- getting down to work, leading a team, and hopefully serving as an omen of the much needed good luck our country desires and deserves.
Not just ordinary luck but the kind of luck born of opportunity, planning, and rolling up your sleeves and getting to work -- doing all that's necessary to solve the inherited crises. He's rolling up his shirt sleeves to find a solution for sound emergency and long-term fiscal recovery, short-term relief for struggling and suffering American families, creating new jobs and local green economies, designing purposeful social and health care programs, ending a tragic and unnecessary war, fighting terrorism, closing Gitmo, and using real science to help solve global warming, advance stem cell research, and ensure women's choice.
That the first bill he signed was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is a reassuring symbol of the social decency that has so long been missing from our government and corporate culture. Reversing some of the harshest Bush-Cheney policies regarding torture, illegal wire tapping, and the dismissal of habeas corpus are also a taste of rolling up his sleeves and getting back to the nation's business and showing the world that we might just have a moral compass after all.
It was the artist Francis Picabia who said "If you want to have clean ideas, change them as often as your shirt." For Obama, who ran on a platform of change, hopefully he will literally and figuratively wear his successes as gracefully as his "shirt of change" while he attempts to iron the seemingly endless tangle of wrinkles in our national fabric. And as Willie Loman said, "Attention must be paid!"
]]>