133. 'Green' once a year not enough

April 22 is Earth Day and, thanks to the many events throughout Ohio and the country, it is a day for raising the awareness of environmental issues. The idea has come a long way, and I hope that one day it will be a national holiday.

The problem is that only raising environmental consciousness on Earth day is like only attending church on Christmas Eve and Easter. Environmentalism is something that needs to be practiced every day, it needs to be a part of every decision we make.

I am grateful for the many Earth Day programs that one can enjoy, including the Cleveland Zoo and the Lorain County Metro Parks. EarthFest, promoted by the Earth Day Coalition has many fine events including green home improvements, clean transportation and many environmental exhibits

The Lorain Metro Parks similarly have an Earth Day Extravaganza which advocates the simple things like replacing burnt out light bulbs with florescent bulbs and composting. The day includes crafts, games, hikes and activities.

However neither of these programs, nor many of the others I have run across, include programs that speak to vegetarianism as one of the best, if not the best, methods to promote environmentalism.

I am sure the problem considered in the planning of these events is a matter of interest. However, if the issue cannot be discussed here, among a crowd of people supposedly dedicated to preserving the Earth, where can it be considered?

The truth is that promoting environmentalism through recycling aluminum cans is like promoting fuel efficiency by making sure your tires are properly inflated. Sure it helps, but if you really want to spend less on gas, the better suggestion is not to drive-walk or ride your bike. If you must drive then drive a small hybrid. To drive a large Sport Utility Vehicle with properly inflated tires is better than driving one with poorly inflated tires-but, in comparison to other solutions, and in the grand scheme of things, both are practically useless alternatives.

The issue is so significant that one vegetarian group even sells a t-shirt that says something like, "If you are not a vegetarian, you are not an environmentalist." The argument is well settled as noted by goveg.com,

"In November 2006, the United Nations released a massive report that details the environmental consequences of eating meat. It's called Livestock's Long Shadow, and it concludes that raising chickens, pigs, and other animals for food is "one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global."

It is spelled out in detail in the environmental magazine, "E,"

"E, the respected environmental magazine, noted that more than one-third of all fossil fuels produced in the United States are used to raise animals for food. It takes up to 16 pounds of grain to produce 1 pound of animal flesh. If we have to grow massive amounts of grain and soy-with all the tilling, irrigation, crop dusters, and so on that are required-truck all that grain and soybeans to factory-style farms and feedlots, feed it to the approximately 10 billion land animals who are raised for food in the U.S. each year, truck those animals to automated slaughter facilities, truck the dead animals to processing centers, run the processing and packaging machines, and then truck the packaged meat to grocery stores-well, there's a lot of energy being used up at each one of those stages."

The result, according to John Robbins, is that,

"the average vegan uses about one-sixth of an acre of land to satisfy his or her food requirements for a year; the average vegetarian who consumes dairy products and eggs requires about three times as much, and the average meat-eater requires about 20 times that much land. We can grow a lot more food on a given parcel of land if we're not funneling crops through animals."

This is just the tip of the ever-melting iceberg, as it does not even include other environmental issues such as water usage, water and air pollution, global warning, and the destruction of the rain forests and aquaculture.

When you consider the impact of eating meat on our planet, one wonders what exactly these Earth Day program committees are thinking about. Surely they understand, don't they? Are they afraid to challenge people's values or morality; are they afraid that the farmers will protest? Talk about the elephant in the room!

The obvious point is that we keep ignoring the major environmental factors-the ideas that will result in significant change. Whether it is due to power, greed, ignorance or the inability to make personal sacrifices, we keep cowering in the corner when it comes to the one real solution to our problems.

I am not suggesting that it is realistic to expect everyone to live a completely environmental life-such as a vegan diet, recycle, and drive a hybrid or electric car. There is so much that can be done, to the point that our lives could be paralyzed in indecision. However we can all do more.

In this respect, I understand change takes time, and I appreciate that doing something is better than doing nothing. Everyone doing the little things can have a positive impact on the environment; the numbers do add up in a hurry.

However, at the same, we need to be able to have honest conversations about the things that can really impact the environment, not just those small things that make us feel better about ourselves. This is the conversation that is necessary to initiate the consideration of change.

132. Respect is earned, not ordered

There was a lot of media attention last week concerning President Obama's trip to England and his meeting with Queen Elizabeth. Michelle Obama also made the trip, and, likewise, was introduced to the queen.

The meeting was drenched in tradition and etiquette. And there was some controversy about whether Michelle Obama inappropriately touched the queen, or whether the iPod was an appropriate gift (the Queen, by the way, gave President Obama a picture of herself...how fitting!)

She is the Queen of England (she is also the Head of the Commonwealth, Supreme Governor of the Church of England, Duke of Normandy, Lord of Mann, and Paramount Chief of Fiji, according to Wikipedia)-and there are rules as to what you can say, how you are supposed to act and a list of those things that you cannot do.

According to various sources, some of the rules include:

Do not attempt to touch the queen. Wait for the queen to extend her hand.

Do not bow or curtsy (this would be the rule if the subjects meeting the queen were British).

First greet the queen as "her majesty," then as "ma'am."

Do not turn your back to the Queen.

I think a show of respect is a courtesy that should be extended to all human beings, regardless of your age, sex, race, socioeconomic status, religious preference or last name. It is something that we as Americans probably do not do well-we often rush to judgment, declaring our own interest superior to others.

However, the idea that queens and kings still exists, let alone that they are still privileged to special treatment and etiquette, is outdated and preposterous. A quick historic review of monarchies offers the reminiscences of war, revolution, power and greed. Is that not in part what Americans fought against, the idea that people should not be controlled by royal dynasties-unaccomplished kings and queens, declared such simply because they were delivered from the noble womb.

Think about those people you have respect for. Are they those people that have worked hard-gone to school, worked two and three jobs, endured both success and failure, and who not always act in their self-interest, or is it someone born into privilege, deserving of admiration simply because of their family name?

In this specific case, who do you think deserves more respect-an African-American, born to a middle class family who works himself through law school and the American political system, or the current queen, who was born into privilege, and unexpectedly became the queen only because her uncle, Prince Edward, Prince of Whales, never had children?

Let's be serious, if there is a matter of respect to be shown, it should be the queen offering it to President Obama.

I realize and understand that there could be a book-length discussion on the queen herself, her responsibilities and that, in many respects, it is the tradition of the royal family that lives on. But the point is still the same-who cares? We make it important simply by adhering to archaic political and historical systems. That time has passed; it is time to earn respect.

As to how respect is earned, it is different for everyone. Some people are respected for becoming the best at what they do, for being elected to political positions or becoming highly educated. Others are respected for the amount of money they have, their athletic ability or their artistic talent. Finally, others are respected for simply working hard at whatever they do, providing for their families and making sacrifices for others-such as donating time and money to worthy causes.

I probably respect all of these people, and it is not that I am necessarily out to disrespect the queen. However, I think it is time to reevaluate, as a species, those traditions that are built on nothing else more than tradition itself. There needs to be a reason-a qualitative or quantifiable reason that is more than "She's the Queen!"

When it comes to matters of tradition, the question should always be, "what happens if..." In this case what happens if President Obama reaches for her hand first, calls her something other than "her majesty," or if Michelle Obama wore a sleeveless dress? Who is harmed? Who has suffered?

Most importantly, if it was done without the specific intent to be disrespectful, how silly it is that anyone would care-when there are more important things in this world to worry about.

131. Customer service important now

Difficult economic times mean, among other things, that families have less disposable income. It also means that whatever disposable income that can be spent on entertainment or excesses-like eating out, going to the movies or attending sporting events-is precious. Businesses and organizations that rely on disposable income need to realize, under these circumstances, that customer service is more important than ever.

However, and unfortunately, acceptable customer service continues to be an increasing problem-so much that financial guru, Clark Howard, calls it "customer no-service." This collection of customer no-service, in his case, extends beyond entertainment and excesses and includes every service that is available for purchase. The idea follows a similar premise-I am spending my hard-earned money on a product, and I would like that product to be or perform as advertised.

The easiest way for any company or business to remain or become competitive is to keep their product as inexpensive as possible. And, this, as we know all too well, usually comes in the form of finding the most inexpensive labor possible. In American service industries, this usually means hiring teenagers or young adults, in manufacturing, this includes building plants in third world countries, and, in technology or technical support, this often means outsourcing customers service centers to places like India.

We all know and understand the frustration of calling a company's support line. First we have to navigate between several directories or menus, then we are placed on hold and then, finally, we are forced to speak to someone you cannot understand. Worse, this person is usually following a customer support manual-full of "if-then" decision trees. Often they are in no position to speak to anything outside the manual, prompting the advice, "Don't speak to anyone who does not have the authority (or ability) to solve your problem."

Worse than that, however, is the current state of domestic customer service. Sometimes it is nearly impossible to get anything done right the first time. The problem is not just that businesses are hiring the wrong people-it is that they are hiring people who, at times, do not seem to care. It is tempting to scribe a laundry list of examples, such as trying to purchase a meatless Big Mac. Sounds simple, right? One Big Mac minus the meat-that means please make me a Big Mac exactly as Big Macs are to be made, just don't put the meat on it. I have received a Big Mac without meat and cheese, without meat, cheese, and sauce, and a Big Mac that only had bun and lettuce. It is so bad that I never order it through the drive thru anymore-I have to go in and check it before I leave.

Nobody likes returning food or a faulty product, but when it is necessary, it is sure nice to be greeted with, "I am sorry, please allow me to correct our mistake." That's it, that's all I want. Rather, I am often greeted with grunts, or excuses, or arguments-like I did something wrong. My parents owned several small businesses and I know that customers are not always right. People will try to take advantage of situations, in which case companies should stand their ground-professionally of course, but they are not obligated to cater to every customer's complaint. However, when the business has made a mistake, I would like them to understand my inconvenience and frustration. I don't have the time to do things twice.

In these tough times, my wife and I have become less understanding. Treat us rudely, and we'll go somewhere else. Some of our favorite places are now on our "boycott list," which we will jokingly sentence them to after incurring problems. Really, when I go out, I just want people to be nice. I know times are tough for everyone-and customer service is difficult because at times the employee has to be an actor, putting personal problems aside.

Employees need to be trained better, perhaps paid better, and understand that if people are not happy with their service-the business owner that gave you this job will go out of business, and you will lose your job. In working for my parents, it was often easier to understand-if we lost customers, my whole family suffered. The truth is that we are all accountable to someone-whether it is small business owners, taxpayers or shareholders. For some this is a tough lesson to learn.

Recently, when our favorite local pizza place messed up our order, after a very stressful day, the manager on duty, rather than apologize, explained that he has a "bunch of teenagers" working there. Unbelievably, it was almost as though he was blaming us for having unrealistic expectations.

Boycott-six months, maybe longer, if we find a new favorite pizza place in the meantime.

130. Recession might good for us

An early morning show was discussing the economy when I caught one of their guests suggest that she was glad that we were going through a recession/depression-that we need to return to our core values.

At first I was appalled, how could anyone be happy that people were losing their jobs and houses. But then I thought about it and understood where she was coming from. Of course, she was not being completely literal and her point was to consider our current way of life.

We have lost some of our human values, such as respect, time with family and living within our means. In some ways, we are a culture out of control, where now everything seems to be out of equilibrium and we do not know where to turn.

Where did things go wrong?

Maybe the answer to that question is where do we start? For many of us, capitalism has been operating on steroids for some time now-satisfying short term earnings with long-term consequences. It was not until the taxpayers got stuck with the bill did the arrogance and irresponsibility of the top executives in the banking, investment and automobile industries become exposed.

As a society, we have become very spoiled. We want everything now-big houses, nice cars, large televisions and hip cell phones. We have racked up large mortgages, undertaken multiple mortgages and maxed out credit cards-all while saving very little. We have become willing to sacrifice principle for price and convenience. We did not care where the product came from, whether it was at the expense of an American job, or through environmental exploitation.

We have allowed technology to consume us. No longer do we take time to really talk to people-everything is an email or text message. It is common while dining out to see families sitting together but not speaking. Often one member of the family is yelling into a cell phone, another is texting a friend and still another is listing to his or her iPod.

We are living a sedentary lifestyle and consuming an unhealthy diet. We are eating processed foods and fast foods. When our diet makes us sick, we want doctors to give us a pill to make us better-rather than change our lifestyles. We are again willing to choose the convenience of a cheap meal over quality and ethical food production. The result is drug companies that are out of control and a health care system in desperate need of reform.

We continue to be a throw-away society. Recycling and conservation efforts are still in its infancy. Until recently, we chose gas-guzzling sport utility vehicles over sensible alternatives-essentially communicating to the automobile industry that they need not invest in hybrids and electric cars. We would gladly destroy the environment or go to war for cheap oil. We are unwilling to take the time to recycle our precious resources or pay a little more for recycled products.

I am not lecturing, I am just saying. We are all guilty in some respect; we all created the mess we are in. I think our new president is correct when he suggests that we will have to work together to get out of this. We need accountability and common sense.

Really, we need to start caring-about each other, about our country and about our world. We also need to be informed; it is ignorance that contributed to our situation. We need to stop looking the other way when it is not our problem, we need to know how our government works, where our products come from and how they are made, and we need to realize that our choices make a difference.

I think what we really need is a time machine. We all need to spend a month living in the conditions endured by our great-grandparents. Maybe we would have a greater appreciation of our present luxuries, learn to work together a little more, and turn off the television and video games from time to time. Maybe a return to our core values would not be such a bad thing after all.