Desperate Houseflies: The Magazine

Uh... We Moved

2007-08-31T13:37:00.000-07:00

In case anyone happens to drop by here, we're not here anymore.

We've renamed our group blog "Hungry, Hungry, Hippos," and you can find us HERE.

Bibles on the Lawn

2007-07-31T13:00:00.000-07:00

Well, what think you of this?

Personally, I know a lot of needy folks who could use part of that $438,000 to pay for food, prescriptions and utility bills.

Group to Deliver Bibles With Newspapers
Published: 7/31/07, 3:46 PM EDTBy MATT CURRY
FORT WORTH, Texas (AP) - Everything from detergent to computer discs is packaged with the Sunday newspaper. So why not Bibles?
A Christian ministry wants to deliver custom-designed New Testaments to newspaper subscribers around the country as part of an effort to find innovative ways to spread a Christian message. But even in the Bible Belt, not everyone thinks that's a good idea.
International Bible Society-Send the Light is planning on spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to distribute Bibles with 11 newspapers during 2007 and 2008. New Testaments would be packaged in pouches on the outside of newspapers, much like soap or other sample products.
The Fort Worth Star-Telegram announced in May it would deliver more than 200,000 New Testaments the last Sunday of the year. David House, the newspaper's reader advocate, said he received about 70 e-mails split between backers and those opposed to packaging the scriptures with newspapers.
"Do you have any idea how blatantly offensive this boneheaded move is to the thinking public?" a Fort Worth reader wrote in one of several letters to the editor on the topic.
Some of the outcry has come from one of the least likely sources - Christians. Bob Ray Sanders, the Star-Telegram's vice president and associate editor, said some worried that the Bibles tossed on the lawn with the newspaper would be thrown away because most people already own a Bible.
"I expected that we'd get some criticism, but I thought it would be coming from people who were not Christian or not religious at all. Many of the complaints we got were from people who were Christian and didn't like the idea," said Sanders.
After an initial outcry in May, the paper told subscribers they could opt out of the delivered Bibles, which include the New Testament and local Christian testimony.
One reader wondered if he could halt other newspaper ads he doesn't like.
"Please note on my account that I want to receive the New Testament and 'opt out' of all other forms of unwanted solicitation and advertising. I want no toxic hair cream, no aspartame-filled gum or any other form of unwanted advertising and solicitation," he wrote.
The Colorado-based International Bible Society published the New International Version of the Bible in 1978, and is one of the world's largest translators and distributors of scriptures. The group merged with Carlisle, England-based Send the Light, one of the largest distributors of Christian literature, earlier this year.
The Bible ministry's "City Reachers" project aims to reach newspaper subscribers in eight regions, according to its Web site.
But fundraising for the projects has been slow. None has raised even half the money needed to finance the initiative yet. In Fort Worth, the group faces an Oct. 31 deadline to raise $438,000; so far, only a little more than $13,000 has been collected through church offerings and other efforts.
If the money can't be raised, the project may be delayed.
The society's Paul Tolleson said major fundraising in Fort Worth and other cities has only just begun. Some campaigns already have been delayed, but none have been canceled.
Tolleson expressed frustration with the complaints.
"It's disappointing that anyone would object to getting a Bible, which is the best read book in the whole world and has been for hundreds of years. They have the right to do with it what they want to," he said. "Do they object to getting a bag of Quaker oatmeal or Tide detergent or an AOL disc?"

The Future of Desperate Houseflies: Your Input Wanted

2007-07-19T13:29:00.000-07:00

I hope Al doesn't mind my posting this. He's out of pocket for a few days, so I couldn't run it by him, and it seemed like a good idea, so here goes. (What's the old saying? "Easier to get forgiveness than permission," or something like that?)

The future of this blog is currently under discussion. Al started DH specifically as a group blog, the idea being that that would generate more discussion. As you've probably noticed, there hasn't been much discussion for the past several months, and only 2 or 3 people even posting. With neither a group blogging, nor much discussion happening, one wonders if there's any point in continuing.

Maybe DH has run its course and it's time to retire it and let those still around reclaim their time for other pursuits.

On the other hand, while posting and discussion are down, visits to the blog have remained steady or even ticked up a bit. So it seems somebody keeps coming to see what the Houseflies are up to. What's more, they don't even seem to be just -- or even mostly -- the Houseflies and their immediate families. (This falls in the "truth is stranger than fiction" category, I believe.)

So, if you're a lurker here'bouts (or even a sometime contributor), and you have an opinion one way or the other on retiring this blog, we'd like to hear from you. I don't think our current settings allow anonymous comments, but you can comment using a pseudonymous account if you'd prefer to remain unknown. (If you don't have an account, it takes about 2 minutes to set one up.)

To Housefly, or not to Housefly? That is the question. Speak now or forever hold your peace.

I See Dead People

2007-07-18T10:28:00.001-07:00

chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp

Weeee Love You with the Looove of the Lorrrrd!

2007-07-12T15:59:00.000-07:00

We love you with the LOOOVE of the Lorrrd. We seeeee in yoooou the glory of our- wait a minute. Not that guy.

See, how it works is, everybody's got a ministry. For some people, it's preaching. For others, it's singing or teaching or pie or building recording studios (don't ask). These folks, though, they make asses of themselves for Jesus. It's their ministry.

I really would like to meet Jesus, someday. He's hilarious.

Goose and Gander

2007-07-05T14:31:00.000-07:00

There's no doubt that the Iraq War is much on everyone's mind, these days. The death, the destruction, the drain on national coffers. The problem is, or has been, that there simply isn't any solution to it that is politically viable for both the Democrats in Congress and the Republican president.

I have a solution.

Mine is a compromise solution. It detracts nothing from the president's claims for executive power; in fact, it relies on them. It brings the war to an end without signaling surrender, and without calling into question the decision to start it in the first place. We'll still suffer the monetary cost of the war, and we'll still be on thin ice for a while in world opinion, but at least we'll have a just, honorable, and lasting peace in Iraq.

My solution is simple: President Bush should commute the Iraq War.

Oh, sure, some people will object, but, hey, commutations are well within the power of the presidency. I think we can all agree with Tony Snow on that. Plus, a commutation would respect the decision of the politicians who brought us the war in the first place. It would just lighten the load a little. After all, 4 years does seem excessive. I mean, rilly, who goes into a land war in Asia and expects it to take 4 years?

Besides, there is no underlying reason for staying. It was all cooked up. Political. You know: partisan. Iraq didn't really commit a cri- er, casus bellus. That is, they didn't really have weapons of mass destruction; Saddam just lied about having them. So really, the whole thing is kinda phony to start with.

Yep. All in all, a commutation seems like the most just outcome. And did I mention it's well within the president's power? 'Cause it is. Like, waaaaay within.

Setec Astronomy

2007-06-29T10:32:00.000-07:00

In response to the recent Washington Post 4-part series on Vice President Cheney, some conservative pundits have argued that they still approve of the way Cheney operates because they believe he has the nation's best interest at heart.

If good intentions were all that mattered, that might be persuasive.

Unfortunately, they aren't. And power wielded in secret doesn't just corrupt intentions; it corrupts wisdom.

Aside from engendering the tendency to behave badly, power wielded in secret also engenders a tendency to behave foolishly. Even if the current president and vice president were saints, immune to the morally corrupting influence of secret power, they still would make many more foolish mistakes as a result of having it.

It's a simple enough principle. Secrecy, by its definition, means less input from fewer people, which almost always leads to more mistakes. There's a reason the executive branch has a department devoted to diplomacy, another devoted to defense, and several specializing in collecting and analyzing information. Those departments aren't pork barrel projects. They came into being because executives needed expert input to make good decisions.

The Bush/Cheney approach cuts off that expertise in the name of secrecy. It leaves the two of them and a handful of their immediate aides talking inside a barrel; the only ideas they hear are their own, echoing back to them as if everyone outside the barrel were agreeing with them. How often does that -- and the lack of expert advice -- lead to fewer mistakes? If the vice president's record is any indication, almost never.

Secrecy isn't just corrupting. It's extremely error prone. And that remains true even with the best of intentions.

Secrecy breeds incompetence.

Archbishop of Boston Declares NAMBLA the Model for the New Church

2007-06-28T16:27:00.001-07:00

Whatever our political persuasion, I think we can all agree on 2 things: things are not going as well in Iraq as we'd like; and an Arab/Muslim version of "My Favorite Things" likely would not include Israel. Not only can we all agree on those things, I would think we all take them as rather obvious. I mean, I don't know when you last forgot that the Arabs and Israel don't get along, but it's been a good while for me.

So why, oh, why is the President of the United States saying Israel is our model for the new Iraq?

That thumping sound you hear is me banging my head on my desk. I mean, sweet Italian Jesus, who thought this would be an appropriate comparison to make? Which White House speechwriter is so tin-eared he doesn't understand how that's going to sound in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East? How is saying it supposed to be helpful to our cause?

Honestly, I'd give most anything at this point for mere competence in the executive branch. Nothing fancy. It could still be hardcore Republican. Just competent hardcore Republican. Is that really so much to ask?

Licensing and Whatnot

2007-06-26T09:40:00.000-07:00

So I I get to work a while ago and go to Pandora Radio and find the following message.

"I'm sorry to say that today Pandora, along with most Internet radio sites, is going off the air in observance of a Day Of Silence. We are doing this to bring to your attention a disastrous turn of events that threatens the existence of Pandora and all of internet radio. We need your help.

"Ignoring all rationality and responding only to the lobbying of the RIAA, an arbitration committee in Washington DC has drastically increased the licensing fees Internet radio sites must pay to stream songs. Pandora's fees will triple, and are retroactive for eighteen months! Left unchanged by Congress, every day will be like today as internet radio sites start shutting down and the music dies."

Okay, so I wouldn't call this "disastrous," as much as just a head-scratcher. I don't understand licensing well enough to say anything interesting here. I'm not a fan of illegal downloads, so it's not like I'm trying to get something for nothing here. I've heard a lot of new bands by listening to Pandora and have bought a few albums that I wouldn't have otherwise.

So I guess my question is: why would this be a big deal for RIAA? Why would they want to hinder potential consumers from hearing about their products? Is there something larger at work here that I don't know about?

(And for some reason I have it in my head that DeJon knows all about this stuff....so DeJon? Thoughts?)

Had Me a Baby ...

2007-06-23T13:52:00.001-07:00

Hi all, I just wanted to give you the good news that Casey Harper Ludwig has arrived. He was born at 9:28 p.m. on Monday, June 18, weighed in at 7 pounds 6 ounces, and was 19 1/2 inches long. The birth was uncomplicated and unmedicated (!). Casey, David and I are all doing well. Here's where you can find some pictures: http://caseyharper.dotphoto.com. (password is Casey).

Flibbertigibbet

2007-06-21T10:49:00.000-07:00

I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that "flibbertigibbet" is spelled "flibbertigibbet." I have no point here; this was just news to me, and oddly fascinating. One wonders if it has nautical origins, which fact probably makes one a flibbertigibbet.

The Gray Net of Abstraction

2007-06-20T05:26:00.000-07:00

(A slightly modified sharing of today's post from my personal journal-type blog)

An intense thunderstorm rolled through late yesterday afternoon, changing my evening plans. My youngest daughter emerged from her colorful room, wanting to be with me, and I wondered again if we Gulf Coast citizens are a wee bit more sensitive to the weather than folks in other places. Maybe not, but I wonder...

Anyway, after the storm settled down, my change in plans allowed me some time to do a little more reading in The Jesus Way by Eugene Peterson. I finished an interesting chapter on "Isaiah of the Exile," and at its conclusion the author shared a quote from famed novelist, Saul Bellow.The quote is a bit heady for me, but after sorting through it I realize that it reflects a theme with Peterson, one that I've been buying into for some time now. Here's the quote from Bellow:

"...the gray net of abstraction covering the world in order to simplify and explain it . . . that must be countered . . . by insisting on the particularity of detail and the immediacy of place, giving us access to life firsthand so that we are not 'bossed by ideas.'"

Like Gomer Pyle, I had to put a bucket on my head and "have a think" on this for a while, but I think I get what Bellow is proposing: that the tendency to simplify the world into concepts can keep us from participating in life.

I'm afraid this betrays a church scandal. We're big into concepts at church (the gray net of abstraction): we talk a LOT about things like love and mercy and justice and salvation. And yet, I'm afraid we may end up so "bossed by ideas" that we may miss out on participating in these very ideas - loving the person in line at the grocery store, showing mercy to the waitress at lunch, seeking justice for the lonely nursing home resident, experiencing salvation from our personal addictions.

It is becoming an increasingly important aspect of my life to spend less time dwelling on ideas and concepts and more time in "the particularity of detail and the immediacy of place."

Maybe even today.

Voting Trends. And Happy Father's Day.

2007-06-16T11:51:00.000-07:00

This is an interesting map of the U.S., showing voting trends by district over the past 40+ years in Presidential elections. I just thought it was interesting to see how the voting changes from election to election. So anyway -- just watch the map and it'll do the work for you, changing every few seconds from one election to the next.

More importantly, though.

Happy early Father's Day. My dad's a keeper. On more than one occassion he's driven for hours just to give me a hug and take me to lunch (and by hours, I mean from Arkansas to TN or NY -- and he'd start out for CA tonight if he thought I needed a hug and a steak). The Houseflies I actually know have some top-notch dads. I kind of adopted JU's entire family a few years ago, and his dad is one of the best. I've been on several outdoors-y type trips with C-Love's dad (other than his questionable skills of navigation, he's a hoot). Golfed a few rounds with Doc Watson's dad (he always pays!). So yeah, happy Father's day.

Politics, Protestantism, Postmodernism, and Agape

2007-06-14T11:42:00.000-07:00

Here's Laura Miller reviewing Terry Eagleton's new book, The Meaning of Life. Miller is my favorite book reviewer, edging out Sven Birkerts, and Eagleton is an uncommonly good writer with a sharp wit, so this was a promising combination. Sure enough, it's a really interesting review.

I don't have all that much to say about it that isn't in the review itself (which, if you're wondering, is not very long). I thought it might be of interest here because of where it fetches up -- the ethics of agape -- and because it ties together a set of interesting ideas in a really interesting way.

Also, I thought I'd link to it because Eagleton's book (if Miller's review is accurate) is a good example of how to offer a non-religious argument for public policy that's consistent with one's own religious beliefs.* This is something I've harped on occasionally, here'bouts, as being important in Christian ethics, so I though it might be useful to link to an example.

I'll be interested to hear what the Houseflies think.

* It should be noted, as Miller does, that Eagleton is no longer religious. Nonetheless, he is talking about an idea -- agape -- that is still rooted in his Catholic upbringing, which he still values.

Sharing Time

2007-06-11T17:56:00.000-07:00

I'm not on the cutting edge of things most of the time. This is no exception. A number of students this past year kept telling me about Pandora Radio. I didn't know what they meant. But in the last month or so, I've become addicted. If you have any interest in music whatsoever, I highly recommend the site. How it works: you simply type in the name of a band or musician you like. That's it. The site will play continuous music by artists and musicians with a similar sound. So you get to hear songs by your favorite musician as well as songs by artists you've never heard of. If you don't like a song they are playing, you just click a button saying you don't like it and it immediately quits playing it and moves on to the next song. It's free, but you do have to register. I don't think I've received any spam from signing up with them, but I'm not positive about that. It's at least worth a look-see.

Carribean Cruise

2007-06-09T18:13:00.000-07:00

Our Cruise

Sorry to be so absent around here lately. I was literally out of the country this past week on a family vacation cruise to Mexico. You can check out some of the pictures in the slideshow above, and you can read my cruise journal at my personal blog HERE in its six short installments.

In years gone by, friends would invite you over to show you their boring slideshow from their summer vacation. Now, your friends put them on a blog! Yippee!!! Progress!!!

My Hellacious Employment Story

2007-06-08T11:13:00.000-07:00

Where to begin? I guess I’ll start with the employment story. It’s kind of long, so I apologize.

I have been working at a small plaintiff-side class-action law firm for over two years now. It took only a few months for me to realize that I wasn’t particularly valued in this job. Basically, at my first review, which occurred about five months after I started, my employers (two older male partners, in their mid-60s and mid-40s respectively) told me that they “thought I was further along on various skills than I really was.” Meaning, they had somehow gotten the impression that I wouldn’t have a learning curve, and didn’t appreciate that I did need guidance and supervision. This despite the fact that I was honest about my qualifications and previous experience when I was interviewing, and that this was an entirely new practice area for me. The older partner particularly seemed irritated whenever I asked for help or guidance. I knew already that I didn’t enjoy working with him. The younger partner I had fewer problems with, but he would often ask for things without fully communicating what he was asking for. I was mostly able to manage these requests during my first year to year and a half.

At my third review (in August 2006), the older partner said, pretty bluntly, “I’m not sure you want to do this work. I’m not sure you want to litigate.” It was a complete sucker punch – I had no idea at all that such a global judgment had been made about me. Only one example was given to support the conclusion – the day that I had come back from a deposition I was defending upset after being bullied by opposing counsel and unsure of how to deal with an issue that came up during the depo. This had happened eight months prior to the review in which it was raised, and at the time it happened, the partner had been very nice and understanding about it. Needless to say, I thought the entire thing was handled poorly. And, statements like the one the older partner made have a tendency to be self-fulfilling prophecies. After that day I tried my best to avoid him as much as I possibly could. Fortunately, I worked more by that point with the younger partner, so this was not difficult.

Unfortunately, it didn’t solve my problems. I’ll try not to make this too long and involved, but basically in July 2006 there was a misunderstanding involving a deposition being postponed and an expert who was coming to DC to help prepare for the deposition not being informed that it was postponed. There were a lot of communication issues with our co-counsel in that particular case (i.e., they didn’t communicate with us), and I had barely been involved in the case or even informed that this expert was coming to DC, but I got blamed for the miscommunication as lower people on the totem pole often are. After that incident, the younger partner began to on occasion be what I would characterize as verbally abusive toward me. In other words, rather than disagreeing respectfully when I expressed an opinion or giving me constructive criticism, he would make belittling comments that attacked my “lack of experience” or similar. Sometimes these comments were made just to me (especially harshly via email), and sometimes they were made in front of co-counsel. And I started to get blamed anytime there was any type of misunderstanding or miscommunication in a case on which I was working, regardless of whether I was actually at fault or whether five other attorneys had overlooked the same thing. The writing was on the wall, I decided. I needed to find a new job.

But, by the time I realized how bad things had gotten, I was already pregnant, so I had to stay put. I thought, well, I’ll just get through this pregnancy and then I’ll look for another job. Surely I could stick it out for only a few more months.

I told them about the pregnancy in January. The younger partner looked like a deer in headlights when I told him, the older partner was nice about it but a bit paternalistic. Neither of them ever really seemed that comfortable with the whole thing. I didn’t expect them to be. I understand that what is a happy thing for me is an inconvenience and expense for them. But, I knew that I would have gotten a lot more slack and kindness had I been a valued employee in the first instance. The associates had gotten together and anonymously shared our bonuses after the new year. As I suspected, mine was the lowest – and the same amount as that of a colleague who had been at the firm less than nine months and had been out taking the bar for the entire summer (and who quit at the end of the year, but that happened post-bonuses). If I needed any additional confirmation that I was considered the least valuable attorney in the office, I certainly got it that day. There was actually another associate (happily, he has moved on to a new job) who was treated even more poorly than I was, but apparently that didn't translate perfectly into the financial realm.

There are other parts to the story – the many new fascist and punitive “policies” instituted this year, the fact that all the other associates are unhappy too, even the ones who are more well-liked by the partners – but in the interest of keeping this to a manageable length I’ll just say that I have been really miserable for a long time, but especially in 2007. Things just seemed to keep getting worse and worse. Particularly throughout March and April, there was a lot going on and I was working a lot of hours.

And then. In late April we had a court hearing in Connecticut in a case in which I was working with the younger partner. I made the trip but wasn’t feeling particularly well, especially the day before the argument, when we traveled in the morning and then spent many hours prepping for the argument. I should note that I don’t really agree with the younger partner’s style of preparing for an argument (or a deposition, or whatever). He wants/needs a lot of interaction, while I would have my head buried in the materials and not interact much with others since during an argument it’s one person and the judge, so nothing anyone else knows can help you. It’s a stylistic difference based on personality type – I am an introvert, and thus have a different learning style and communication style than do most extroverts. I identified this long ago as a potential reason why I was not being appreciated at work. Introverts are only about 15% of the population, and are often misunderstood and undervalued because they are not interested in (and are in fact averse to) being the center of attention or singing their own praises. Thus, their contributions are often overlooked. But I digress.

Basically, because I was tired and not feeling so well, I probably appeared less engaged than normal with what was going on during the preparation for the oral argument. Part of this was the stylistic difference – because I wasn’t doing the argument, I really didn’t understand what role I was supposed to have in prepping for it. Another part of it was that I didn’t feel that our argument was meritorious. But I usually “fake it” better – I was almost eight months pregnant and just didn’t have it in me that day. I was wearing pants that I realized halfway through the day were too tight around my belly and was having some Braxton Hicks contractions. Add to that the fact that the previous day I had gotten a high blood pressure reading (three of them, actually) during my visit to the midwife. High blood pressure can be a sign of preeclampsia, a very serious complication of pregnancy. I believed that the high blood pressure was due to the stress of my job – not only the long hours I was working, but also the stress of being so unhappy with my work. I was angry and frightened that the (in my view unreasonable) schedule imposed on me at work -- not to mention the crappy way I was treated -- could be harming my baby. I had decided before the trip to wait until after the oral argument to approach the younger partner about this issue and request that I be allowed to slow down a bit.

The argument went well, considering the huge gaping holes in our case. The younger partner flew out instead of taking the train back with the paralegal and myself since he had to go to the West Coast the next day. She and I ended up in the quiet car, so I turned my ringer on my cell phone off. Halfway home, I checked my phone and saw that the partner had called and left me a message. I decided that after everything I had been through on the trip, whatever it was could wait until the next day. So the next morning, after a relaxing train ride home and a nice evening with David, I got to work and checked the message. I was floored by what I heard. It was an extreme escalation of the verbal abuse I referred to above. What I remember of it is that he called me “irresponsible” about five times and said that no other attorney in our firm had ever acted the way I had acted, that he couldn’t live with it, and that I was throwing our clients under a bus. It was completely immature, inappropriate, and abusive, not to mention completely out of proportion to what had occurred. I hadn’t mentioned that I wasn’t feeling well or anything about my blood pressure because I was trying to be considerate of his need to prepare for the argument. I had done what he had specifically asked me to do during the trip – even though that involved (inevitably) delaying meals, lugging a heavy laptop computer on the train with me, and staying up until midnight the night before the argument when I normally went to bed at 10:30 and was trying to be conscientious about getting enough sleep. This voice mail was just the limit. Obviously, it also didn’t have the greatest effect on my blood pressure to be threatened and abused this way. I was incredibly upset, my heart racing and my blood pressure sky high, for over 24 hours.

After consulting with two of my coworkers and the only other attorney who had had children at the firm, I went the sympathy route. I responded to the voice mail with an email in which I explained my side of the story about the trip (emphasizing not feeling well), and then explained my concern about my blood pressure. I made it clear that I did not want to discuss the matter any further because I didn’t want to exacerbate the high blood pressure, and that I needed to be working no more than 40 hours a week per my midwife's suggestion.

Two weeks went by in which there was no response to this email. Then, after two weeks had elapsed, I was called into a meeting with the two partners and the office manager to discuss when my maternity leave would start. I had initially planned to work up to the moment I went into labor in order to have the maximum amount of time possible with the baby and also to minimize the amount of time I was not being paid. In recent weeks, particularly after the voice mail, I had been thinking of starting my leave around June 1, even though my due date was more than two weeks later. I was so miserable I just wanted out ASAP, and the money be damned. A couple thousand dollars was not worth my or my baby’s health, David and I reasoned. Of course, by then it was clear things were not so dire. During those two weeks I had gone out and purchased a blood pressure cuff and took my own blood pressure often. After staying up for a while after the voice mail, it had stabilized and come back down to normal. I had been tested for preeclampsia and found out that I did not have it. The midwives agreed that it was transient and caused by stress. I would still be able to have the birth center birth that I wanted, barring any unforeseen additional complications.

So at this meeting, the older partner says that based on my email to the younger partner, they consulted with outside counsel and decided that I should go on leave starting two days from then (the meeting was on Wednesday, they wanted my last day to be Friday). They wanted me to file a claim for short-term disability so that they would only have to pay for part of my salary during this leave. When I told them that actually, I was doing fine and that there was no medical reason for me to not work, they were unmoved. They just kept saying that they couldn’t be responsible (maybe the word was "liable" -- it was clearly a fear of being sued, which was incredibly insulting and indicative of how damaged the relationship was). It was completely surreal. I told them that I didn’t think I would qualify for short-term disability and they said to just take the form and talk to my “doctor.” The older partner basically said (not in so many words) that you could always find a doctor who will say whatever you want them to say, and that they had been assured by our benefits coordinator that if I filled out the form, the claim would be granted.

I was appalled by this whole turn of events. First of all, if they had really been concerned about me, the time to be concerned was when I initially sent the email explaining what was going on. When I got no response, I assumed that they didn’t care. Second, they wouldn’t listen to me when I explained that in the two weeks that had passed, tests had been run and things were much clearer. None of the potentially bad things that could have been going on had come to pass. Third, they were trying to give me two days notice before not allowing me to come back to work. It was unclear whether they could or would actually keep me from coming into the office, or whether their intention was just to bully me into leaving. Fourth, they were asking me to file a bogus short-term disability claim to help them out financially. The whole thing was so disgusting I was amazed that as bad as things had been, they could possibly sink to this new low.

After consulting again with my coworkers, I sent the partners an email saying that it would be better for the firm if I was able to stay an additional two weeks (through May 18) in order to ensure a smooth transition. They “graciously” “allowed” me to work the additional two weeks. I could have fought it harder and tried to stay longer – hell, I could have consulted an attorney, which is what several people said I should have done since this was clearly pregnancy discrimination – but I decided that I would just rather be done with it all, take my maternity leave pay and run. I had known for a while that I would be looking for another job during my leave, but had always thought that at least this was a backup if I didn’t find anything. But the events of the past several weeks had been so traumatic that I knew that no matter what the financial consequences, I needed to not step foot in that horrible place ever again.

Checking on Sandi

2007-06-05T14:56:00.000-07:00

We haven't heard from our expectant Housefly in a while, so I just wanted to find out: how you doin' and, while I'm at it, when is it you're due?

The Invention of Hugo Cabret

2007-06-04T12:17:00.000-07:00

So. Thus begins my first official blog post. Exciting times! What shall I ramble about, you ask? The Invention of Hugo Cabret.

I first heard about the book when the author, Brian Selznick, was interviewed on Fresh Air. (Yes, I'm a nerd.) Selznick has illustrated several children's books, but I believe this is his first foray into writing. Don't quote me on that. The invention of Hugo Cabret is a graphic novel that tells the story of a 12-year-old orphan who lives in the walls of the Paris train station at the turn of the 20th century. He discovers a broken automaton and is convinced that if he can repair it, it will deliver a message from his dead father. Along the way, he encounters a girl intent on uncovering Hugo's past, a toy shop owner with his own mysterious past, and discovers the magic of early film.

This was my first experience with the "graphic novel" genre, and I didn't realize what I was missing! It really can't get much better than this. The illustrations are all done in pencil and have a huge part in the actual telling of the story, not simply illustrating what you already know is happening.

This is the kind of book that I give to unsuspecting friends as Christmas gifts. It's currently making the rounds through my group of friends, so I might save some money come the holidays.

If you've already read Hugo, let me know your thoughts. If not, a bookstore can't be too far away!

Thus ends my first official blog post. Tada!

Professional Sports Tournaments

2007-06-03T15:56:00.000-07:00

Both the NBA and NHL finals are going on. Noone watches either of them for a couple of reasons. First -- these are both winter sports and it's officially -- if not technically -- summer. The last weekend of May is the first weekend of summer. Even in Canada. Second, professional versions of both sports are painfully boring.

And since we're a week into the "official" summer season, everyone's preparing for the pinnacle of summer sports, which takes place on 4 July every year. Nathans Hot Dog Eat-Off (or whatever its called). Thing is, this year there's extra excitement to be excited about leading up to the eat-off. A NEW RECORD HAS BEEN SET. In a recent "preliminary" round, Joe Chestnut ate almost 60 hot dogs in 12 minutes. SHATTERING! the old record.

Personally, I have no desire to compete in these types of events. However, I would like to apply to be commissioner of Major League Eating, which -- and I can't tell if they're trying to be funny or not -- describes itself as the "governing board for all stomach-centric sports."

Hurry, Call 911! Or Don't!

2007-05-29T12:11:00.000-07:00

One of my “parishioners” gave me a few magazines to read recently, through which I ran across the following article. I’m not promoting the argument, but when I read it, I instantly recognized that it could create some very interesting dialogue on the Houseflies. So… feel free to dialogue!

HOW CALLING 911 CREATES A CRISIS
The bureaucracy of crisis intervention is an obstacle to loving thy neighbor
By Jurriaan Kamp, “Ode” (June, 2007)

If you have a problem in today’s society, you don’t knock on your neighbour’s door; you dial numbers. “Care” and “attention” are found at the other end of a telephone line. Those numbers diminish the universal phenomenon once referred to as mercy, compassion or altruism. Crisis hotlines and 911 numbers increase the distance between people.

Love for your fellow man flourishes when people live in close proximity and have reciprocal relationships. Caring for others – solidarity – is a classic characteristic of “primitive” societies simply because the people are dependent on one another and don’t live in a world of “care facilities.” In modern society, caring for our neighbours is no longer our concern, but that of nameless professionals. When politicians speak of a “safety net,” they are not referring to a circle of mutually supportive citizens, but agreements that are made by the state, a company, an insurer and a pension fund. We can only hope that such institutions will take care of us if we’re in need. The tragic paradox is that all the well-meaning efforts to make society more just and humane – from communism to social services – have undermined a vital element of humanity. People don’t have to take care of each other anymore, and so they don’t. “Mercifulness” has become a word reserved for dictionaries. Many people believe this word intuitively belongs in the Bible or history books. The modern version of mercy is charity. And that describes donors with checkbooks, for Hollywood stars who become ambassadors of good causes and for the percentage of the government budget pledged to development aid.

Society doesn’t benefit if care professionals replace neighbourly relationships. If care becomes a large-scale operation, our sense of community disappears. That doesn’t mean we should nostalgically reminisce about the good old days. The feudal society of previous centuries offers no solutions, nor is there a future for us in tribal cultures. Yet we can use elements from these ways of life to instill moral values in society. The key is a small scale. Our lives must be manageable enough to allow reciprocal relationships to blossom, and to strengthen a mutual exchange of goods and information – but also of sadness and happiness – as well as trust and solidarity.

The moral values of today’s politicians are so quick to invoke would benefit from a smaller state, less government interference, not as much emphasis on policy and a simpler bureaucracy. If we had fewer emergency numbers, people’s mutual dependence would increase. The political “right” is in fact right: The state doesn’t make people “good.” On the contrary, a powerful government corrupts the innate “goodness” of the market – and of people.

Humans are programmed to work together, show respect for their fellow man. But that “natural programming” only works in small-scale environments without a powerful government. Therefore, the challenge lies in giving that much-needed small scale a place in our globalizing society and connecting local communities in a world economy. To do this, we need to recognize that 911 and emergency services alone don’t mean progress.

did you know?: it's not you, it's me

2007-05-26T16:20:00.000-07:00

I hate to write something that'll knock the title "Live Nude Women" off the top of the page.

But. It's a nice relaxing afternoon. Reading at the beach for the last few hours. Hate me.

One of the things I had with me to read on the beach was the latest issue of Seed. And inside the magazine was a surprisingly interesting conversation between David Byrne (he of the Talking Heads and who I usually find very annoying because he is just too cool for me) and Daniel Levitin (he who I knew nothing about, but is apparently a "Behavioral Neuroscientist," whatever that is).

I know we have a couple of scientist-types here, so maybe this isn't new. But it was to me.

In the interview they are discussing how a stimulus (language, taste, noise, etc.) registers in a "distinct part of the brain." So when we hear something, this part of our brain distinguishes this sound from smell or taste, and goes even further by distinguishing between types of sounds (if something is music or someone talking or if it's a just a noise). Now, even though I didn't know that, it didn't surprise me to find it out. That's not the interesting part.

The interesting part is that not everyone's brain makes these distinctions. Some people suffer from synesthesia. Their brains don't distinguish stimuli very well -- they hear a noise and it will create a taste in their mouths or manifest itself as a color. I had no idea. Sounds very disorienting, although they really don't discuss the impact on adults who suffer from this (they're interested in something else), other than saying that in extreme forms, synethesia can keep people from distinguishing between whether they're hearing something or smelling something or tasting something.

In fact, there is a theory, Levitin explains, that says all infants are synesthesetes, that "sensory differentiation takes a few months after birth to occur...that infants live in this sort of psychodelic world of everything being jumbled together."

I don't spend a lot of time thinking about science, which is probably why I'm a sucker for little bits of information about this.

And although Byrne and Levitin don't discuss it, I'm sure there is some typical overlap the senses of most people. So if you see me in the next few days and shortly after you lay eyes upon my dark tan, there's suddenly the taste and smell of coconut in your mouth and nose -- don't worry. You probably don't suffer from synesthesia. It's just me.

Happy Memorial Day Weekend, everyone. Hope it's a good one. And safe.

Live Nude Women

2007-05-17T10:39:00.000-07:00

I ran across this item while doing my daily scan of websites this morning. I don't follow swimming, so I don't even know who Amanda Beard is. So the fact that she's decided to get nekkid for the camera doesn't do much for me. It did start me thinking, though.

Has anybody else noticed that it seems to have become a rite of passage for famous young women to take their clothes off on film?

I realize, of course, that attractive young women have been taking their clothes off for as long as men have been willing to pay to see them, but this seems different. It used to be that the women who got nekkid in the movies (or magazines or wherever) were the ones who couldn't get a role any other way. Talented actresses had the option of not doing nudity, and generally took it. When I was a younger moviegoer, the talented young actresses were people like Meryl Streep, Holly Hunter, Michelle Pfeiffer, and Debra Winger. Of those, Winger was the only one to do a nude scene (IIRC), and even that was in a good role in a highly regarded film, An Officer and a Gentleman. Generally, the ones who got nekkid were the ones who couldn't act -- the Brooke Shields's and Phoebe Cates's -- and therefore weren't in a position to say no and still be movie stars.

Now, however, even talented young actresses seem to get nekkid on film almost as soon as they legally can: Claire Danes (probably the most blindingly talented actress of her generation), Kate Winslet, Keira Knightley, Gwyneth Paltrow, Reese Witherspoon, even Thora Birch and Disney princess Anne Hathaway. And that's just off the top of my head. The only notable exception I can think of is Natalie Portman, who was only a few threads from the full Monty in Closer.

There have always been exceptions, one way or the other -- good actresses who did nudity when most didn't, good actresses who haven't now that seemingly most do, bad actresses who didn't or haven't, etc. But it seems to me the "default setting," so to speak, has flipped.

Anybody else getting that sense? Any opinions on why it is?

I can't tell if it's because there's more pressure to do nudity now, or because good actresses are simply choosing to do more of it. Maybe it's an expression of second-wave feminist sexual assertion (see also, "Sex and the City"). Maybe, since many of them were well known child actors, they want to announce they aren't kids anymore.

Or maybe nudity just isn't that big a deal anymore.

Reading List

2007-05-17T06:48:00.000-07:00

I keep meaning to write the reviews I promised last week on Pynchon and Julavitz. I've started both of them, but I keep getting sidetracked by reading. If you get a chance next time you're in the bookstore, thumb through A Disorder Peculiar to the Coutnry, by Ken Kalfus. One of the best books I've read in a while. Also, I'm re-reading The History of Love, by Nicole Krauss. I read it a couple of years ago when it came out and for whatever reason decided to read it again. It's worth thumbing through as well, even though it probably has one of those ugly "Today Show" stickers on it.

Reviews soon, though.

For no other reason than that I'm listening to this song right now, I'll leave you with the lyrics from a great song by Counting Crows, called "Anna Begins." One of my favorite songs ever. Lots of lyrics, so I'll summarize a bit for you very briefly: the two people in the relationship are discussing whether or not they are "ready for this sort of thing." The guy seems a bit of a jerk for the first half of the story. But toward the end, he's not so much of a jerk. Anyway, I know I'm the only one on here interested in Counting Crows, BUT, if you skip to the end of the song, I love the lines about her sneezing and talking in her sleep. Those are great lines.

My friend assures me "it's all or nothing"
I am not worried- I am not overly concerned
My friend implores me " for one time only, make an exception."
I am not not worried
Wrap her up in a package of lies
Send her off to a coconut island
I am not worried - I am not overly concerned
with the status of my emotions
"oh", She says, "you're changing."
But we're always changing
It does not bother me to say this isn't love
Because if you don't want to talk about it then it isn't love
And I guess I'm going to have to live with that
But, I'm sure there's something in a shade of gray
Or something in between
And I can always change my name if that's what you mean
My friend assures me "it's all or nothing"
But I am not really worried, I am not overly concerned
You try to tell yourself the things you try tell yourself to make
yourself forget, to make yourself forget, I am not worried
"If it's love" she said, "then we're gonna have to think about the consequences"
Cause she can't stop shaking and I can't stop touching her and.....
This time when kindness falls like rain It washes her away and Anna begins to change her mind
"These seconds when I'm shaking leave me shuddering for days" she says.
And I'm not ready for this sort of thing
But I'm not gonna break
And I'm not going to worry about it anymore
I'm not gonna bend. And I'm not gonna break andI'm not gonna worry about it anymore
It seems like I should say "as long as this is love..."But it's not all that easy so maybe I should just
snap her up in a butterfly net-Pin her down on a photograph album
I am not worried I've done this sort of thing before
But then I start to think about the consequences
Because I don't get no sleep in a quiet room and...This time when kindness falls like rain
it washes me away and Anna begins change my mind
And every time she sneezes I believe it's loveand oh lord.... I'm not ready for this sort of thing
She's talking in her sleep-it's keeping me awake
And Anna begins to toss and turn
And every word is nonsense but I understand and oh lord. I m not ready for this sort of thing
Her kindness bangs a gong
It's moving me along and Anna begins to fade away
It's chasing me away. She dissappears, and oh lord I'm not ready for this sort of thing.

Jerry Falwell

2007-05-15T17:02:00.000-07:00

If you haven't heard by now, Jerry Falwell died today. I'm sure there'll be reams said about him in the next few days, but I wanted to quote some observations from Salon.com. One doesn't expect Salon.com to be a big fan of Jerry Falwell, and they aren't. But their writer does make some points worth pondering.

To the religious life of the United States [Falwell] made no significant contribution. But to the political life of the country, he made one: He founded the Moral Majority. In so doing, Falwell managed to take something holy -- one does not have to be a Christian to admire the life and teachings of Jesus Christ -- and turned it into something partisan and divisive.

Evangelicalism grew in the exurban megachurches, and the megachurches, implicitly and occasionally explicitly, rejected Falwell's approach to the faith. Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, Bill Hybels -- these inclusive preachers inherited the mantle of Billy Graham, not Falwell and his great rival Pat Robertson.

Falwell's theology, such as it was, never made clear how America could be both the promised land and Gomorrah at the same time.

And This Seemed Like a Good Idea Because...?

2007-05-14T15:14:00.000-07:00

I first heard about this one on my local news, last night. When they reported it, they said it was a prank by the teachers. But even going on AP's version of events (i.e., that it was a teaching tool), you're left kinda blinking your eyes and tilting your head to one side in Scooby-Doo fashion. It still sounds to me like these teachers were acting out some serious resentment against their students.

Edited to add: Other reports around the web continue to say it was a prank, even quoting school officials to that effect.

Welcome, Welcome...

2007-05-10T14:56:00.000-07:00

Just thought I'd introduce C-Love (aka Candice) to the team of Houseflies. She's been lurking around here for a while, and I lured her out of the darkness into the brilliant light of housefly-dom. Candice is a professional artist and musician (Arkansas translation: she draws real purty and sings good, too!). Most importantly, everything she knows about world history she learned in tenth grade (you can read more by clicking on her profile).

And way back at my "In His Steps" post, my good friend, Jackie, added a comment (in case you missed it). Jackie's awesome, and I'm glad she knows her way here now. Hopefully she'll drop by a lot, but with a new baby and all, she may have her hands full!

Just thought I'd introduce a couple of new lovely and talented ladies to the team. Just trying to add some more beauty and class around here. :-)

Random Thoughts. Seriously. Completely Random

2007-05-10T11:46:00.000-07:00

For those of you who know my dad -- or at least, for those of you who knew him back when he was a Math teacher -- know that he is fascinated by space travel. He, a grown man, used to have a poster -- first in his room at school and then on a wall in our basement -- of the Space Shuttle lifting off. It was a cool poster and had some sort of "feel good" message on it. But he just liked it because it was a cool new rocket.

One of the first movies we rented when we got our VCR was The Right Stuff.

Only sharing that because I grew up learning a lot about rockets and NASA. But then somewhere along the line I kind of fell out of love with NASA. It started to disgust me that we spend billions upon billions of dollars sending sattelites into space when there are people starving in the world.

I still haven't settled that problem in my mind.

But, I've started to appreciate the work of NASA and NASA-like scientists a bit more in the last couple of years -- maybe just hoping that all that money will result in some sort of breakthrough for humanity. Or maybe just because I've become more fascinated with the stories they are now telling us about our universe, which I find very interesting. Plus, these stories always come with really cool pictures. Like a volcano on one of the moons of Jupiter. Who knew?

This sattelite, New Horizons, is on its way to Pluto. I have no idea why. But it is taking some great pictures. Hopefully the scientist will learn something useful for us.

Coming Soon

2007-05-09T10:37:00.000-07:00

I finally finished Thomas Pynchon's Against the Day this past weekend. I'm trying to digest it, still. But hopefully in the next couple of weeks I'll post a review of it. Also, this past weekend, I read Heidi Julavits's latest book, The Uses of Enchantment. I'll try to do a review of it soon, as it is well worth reading.

Currently reading a new biography of Augustus called, creatively, Augustus: The Life of Rome's First Emperor. It's by Anthony Everitt. Until I started reading this book, I didn't even know I cared about Rome or it's first emperor. Turns out I do. And it's made me want to read Virgil's The Aeneid. If anyone wants to read that with me, we could do a little book club deal, maybe. Discuss it and whatnot. Just let me know.

Joshy the Jedi

2007-05-06T17:07:00.000-07:00

I'm not sure I'd ever make it as a dad. I'd walk around worried about something all the time.

For instance.

The picture above makes me sad. Joshy's the kid in the green shirt. We woke him up about 5:45 to take him to Disneyland. This picture is taken about 12 hours later. He's exhausted. He'd seen this show earlier in the day where they "train Jedi." It's a fancy little show where some guy from Star Wars does a little light-saber routine and then calls up some kids from the crowd to go through Jedi training. And then at the end of the show they get to fight Darth Vader.

Joshy decided he wanted to do this and so his dad and I got him there early enough to sit on the front row. Which he did so very patiently for about half an hour. Did I mention he'd been awake for almost 12 hours at this point? Walking around in the hot sun? The kid was pooped.

He's kind of a quiet kid. So Jack and I were worried he wouldn't get noticed in the mob of, oh, I'm guessing 200 or 300 kids. He was one of the first ones there, but he didn't get noticed. Mostly because he wasn't loud enough for the guy picking the kids -- who based his decision on who was most easily seen: so it was mostly tall kids or kids whose parents pushed their ways to the front holding their kids high in the air (no lie -- the jerks).

So Joshy didn't get chosen even though he'd been there for a long time. After the show started, he finally walked back to his dad and said he was too tired to stay there. He was trying not to cry. I wanted to punch the Jedi.

I'd probably punch a lot of Jedi if I were a dad. Or eat a lot of ice cream, which is what I think we did to cheer Joshy up. Actually, I think it was to cheer us up -- Joshy seemed to have forgotten about it in about 30 seconds. And he seems to be living a normal life. Me, on the other hand -- I'm still hoping Darth Vader beats up the "Jedi Master" at the end of the show one day soon.

An American Prince

2007-05-02T11:53:00.000-07:00

I just don't know what to say about this, from the Wall Street Journal. I'd be really interested to hear the reactions of the readers here.

Edited to Add:

I mentioned in the comments that I'd try to provide a summary of the linked article today. Upon further review (highlighter in hand), I don't think I can justly summarize Mansfield's argument. I can't make enough sense of it.

I can summarize his point. Basically, he's saying that the Constitution constructs a political system in which, during peace, the rule of law is dominant, but during crises, the rule of law gives way to the rule of "one man" -- the Executive.

A little background: Harvey Mansfield is a conservative political philosopher at Harvard. He's been there since Moses. His specialty is Machiavelli. He loves The Prince, which clearly shows in this article.

Miracle Max, Right as Usual

2007-05-01T17:50:00.000-07:00

A while back, I posted a book review in which I recommended Nick Lane's Power, Sex, Suicide: Mitochondria and the Meaning of Life.

Today, on Microsoft's MSN homepage, they're touting an article from Newsweek. In it, scientists discuss what they've learned about what happens when your heart stops beating. Of particular interest is the fact that you're not dead. For at least a few hours after your heart stops beating, although you are, by definition, clinically dead, you remain very much alive; all your cells are still alive. Your brain has shut itself down to preserve oxygen, but it's alive. Nonetheless, medical science shows that attempts to revive a patient whose heart has been stopped for more than a few minutes will fail. The patient is dead.

So you're not dead, but you are dead. What gives? Ah, it's those tricky mitochondria that Nick Lane wrote about.

See, they're the organelles that tell the host cell when it should self-destruct, a process called "apoptosis" (the second "p" is silent if you're scoring at home, or even if you aren't). This is how the body destroys most cancerous cells long before they become a problem; it tells them to self-destruct. Or rather, they tell themselves to self-destruct. Or rather, their mitochondria tell them to self-destruct. If this signal doesn't happen at the appropriate time, cancer is the result.

When your heart has stopped beating for more than a few minutes, then oxygen is suddenly resupplied to your cells -- say, as a result of medical procedures to restart the heart -- the mitochondria in your cells sense that something highly weird has happened and, just to be on the anti-cancer safe side, each of them tells its host cell to commit hari-kari. Boom. Now you're dead. Not just mostly dead, but completely dead, and nothing can bring you back -- not even to blave.

In other words, what kills you isn't your lack of a heartbeat, or even the resulting lack of oxygen, but the doctors' attempts to revive you by flooding you with oxygen and kickstarting your heart. Now that they know this, they're working on ways to resupply your body with oxygen gradually, to prevent putting your mitochondria in kamikaze mode.

Once again, our definition of "dead" has gotten fuzzier.

More Random Thoughts (they're all I'm capable of these days)

2007-04-25T12:03:00.000-07:00

My hero Bono said in an interview once: having nothing to write about isn't an excuse for not writing. I'm not really sure what that means. But. I wanted to write something today and really don't have time to think of much original. Seeing as it's finals week.

So a couple of random stories with no commentary from me.

1. Grading isn't as bad when your students are funny. For instance, one turned in an essay with haikus spread throughout it. Just for fun. A couple made me mix-discs to listen to while grading their essays.

2. Did Rush Limbaugh really say / play this? I want to not believe it. I don't know a thing about the source, other than it's a liberal blog. But why oh WHY is this considered funny or acceptable?

3. I read an article yesterday about a planet relatively nearby (20 light years, give or take, away) that scientists believe has water on it. And therefore at least has the possibility for sustaining life. Or the posibility of having sustained life. I can't find a link to it today. But whatever. That's not really all that important to me. I really just want to know how scientists look at photographs and images and know what is what on a planet. They seem to do this fairly regularly and with some accuracy and I have a Biology degree and have no clue how they do it. A methods lesson from anyone?

4. Al Sturgeon should write a book about Christ. The post below this one is amazing.

5. I love the lyrics to the Radiohead song "How to Disappear Completely," even though I don't know what they mean:

That there, That's not me
I go where I please
I walk through walls
I float down the Liffey
I'm not here
This isn't happening
I'm not here I'm not here
In a little while I'll be gone
The moment's already passed Yeah it's gone
And I'm not here, This isn't happening
I'm not here I'm not here
Strobe lights and blown speakers
Fireworks and hurricanes
I'm not here, This isn't happening
I'm not here I'm not here

Most of the time I like for lyrics to make some sort of sense. But I like that these don't. Don't explain them to me if you understand them. I like them the way they are. Peaceful for some reason.

They're even better if you listen to them with the music.

In His Steps: A Transcript

2007-04-18T18:55:00.000-07:00

[The following is the transcript from my lecture delivered at Crowley's Ridge College two nights ago, minus the little introductory remarks and the obligatory altar call at the end. I'll be interested to read any comments from anyone, from my housefly buddies to those who might link here from my Minutes to Memories blog.]

We have a problem. Churches, that is. We have a big problem. Not liberalism or legalism. It has nothing to do with worship services. It is much bigger than that. And it has been a problem for a very long time. Centuries. But it has to change. It can no longer be tolerated. It may best be explained in a survey once conducted by a young man named Shane Claiborne. Shane drew results from those who identified themselves as “strong followers of Jesus,” and from that group 80% of the respondents said that Jesus spent time with the poor. When asked, 2% of that very same group said they spent time with the poor. Claiborne said, “I learned a powerful lesson: We can admire and worship Jesus without doing what He did.”

That’s the problem in a nutshell.

In the year 2000, less than a year after I became a preacher, I was involved in a church controversy. A small group, led by one particular couple, wasn’t happy with me. In the big meeting that ensued, one lady (who, to this point had been a close friend to our family) said a couple of interesting things: One, for whatever reason, she claimed that I acted more like Jesus than anyone she knew; Two, she then asked if we could get on with the meeting and talk about my false teaching. Does anyone besides me see a problem here? Of how easily we separate what we believe and how we live into distinct groups?

Shane Claiborne again, in his penetrating book, The Irresistible Revolution, wrote, “If you ask most people what Christians believe, they can tell you… But if you ask the average person how Christians live, they are struck silent. We have not shown the world another way of doing life. Christians pretty much live like everybody else; they just sprinkle a little Jesus in along the way.”

Jesus, on the other hand, did show people another way of doing life. In Matthew 19, Jesus challenged the Rich Young Ruler to sell all he had, give to the poor, and then come follow Him. But as rich people today, we aren’t all that interested in following his advice, are we? (To this point, the late musician Rich Mullins once said tongue-in-cheek, “But I guess that’s why God invented highlighters, so we can highlight the parts we like and ignore the rest.”) In Luke 14, Jesus taught students how to throw a party, with the specific instruction being to invite the poor and rejected instead of our family and friends. Again, Claiborne wrote, “We must not have highlighted that verse.”

We have a major problem. We admire Jesus, believe in Jesus, even worship Jesus, but doing what He did – the very definition of following Jesus – well, we aren’t so serious about that part of the deal.

Which leads me to my assigned text: 1st Peter 2: 21-25. Peter wrote these verses to slaves, people in very different life circumstances than you and I. In the verses preceding our text, he told them to take their abuse on the chin when doing what is right. Like Jesus did, you know.

Then, Peter wrote: “For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. He committed no sin; no guile was found on his lips. When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten; but he trusted to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls.” (1st Peter 2: 21-25, RSV)

I would like to make three points from these verses tonight: (1) Christianity is much more than believing in Jesus: it’s about following Him step by step; (2) Following the steps of Jesus doesn’t look like anything we’ve seen; (3) Following in the steps of Jesus costs us everything we’ve got.

First, Christianity is much more than believing in Jesus: it’s about following Him step by step.

1st Peter 2: 21 was the sermon text in the classic novel by Charles Sheldon, In His Steps. In it, a congregation was challenged to live for one year asking the question “What would Jesus do?” before doing anything. And it changed everything. Yet today, the WWJD movement mostly resulted in a slew of Christian products for sale.

Part of the problem may be the definition of “disciple.” In our world, when we think of a student, we think of a person sitting at a desk learning a set of facts or propositions. Instead, we need to become reacquainted with the idea of an “apprentice” (no, not Donald Trump). As Darryl Tippens writes in Pilgrim Heart, “’Learning Jesus’ (Luke Timothy Johnson’s fine phrase) is very different from learning algebra or physics. Learning Jesus is more akin to being apprenticed to a ship captain, a painter, a musician, or a stone mason.” An apprentice learns to do things like his teacher, not just sets of facts. Tippens suggests outfitting Bibles with green words for the things Jesus did (green for GO!), in addition to the red words for things He said. According to Dallas Willard in The Divine Conspiracy, this is what “in the name of the Lord Jesus” means, doing things on his behalf or in his place, as if he himself were doing it.

So how would slaves live with unjust abuse? Just like Jesus taught them to live. Take it. And so how would we, as His apprentices, deal with owning more than we need while others go without? That should keep us up at night, you know?

There is a quiet revolution underway in Christianity, and I might as well be the one to tell you about it. There is a movement emerging (Scot McKnight calls it a “giant elephant in the middle of the Church’s living room”), and at the heart of this movement lies the recognition that how a person lives is of utmost importance. This movement is fond of noticing that every judgment scene in the Bible is based on a person’s “actions,” and that the only time Jesus explains what will matter when all is said and done, He describes it as caring for “the least of these.” I am a part of this emerging movement. This revolution. You are hearing its theme song tonight.

Second, following the steps of Jesus doesn’t look like anything we’ve seen.

In our text, verses 22 and 23 specifically, we learn that part of what made Jesus perfect was His refusal to retaliate in suffering, choosing rather to trust God for justice. This cannot be popular in a nation at war.

The title of this lectureship is “Becoming God’s Special People.” I love the title. Christians are called to be different (or, special), but I wonder what pictures the title brings to mind. It sounds a little warm and fuzzy to me (You’re so special!), but I’m afraid that becoming God’s special people might feel a bit more cold and prickly in reality.

If Jesus were living in the United States of America today, what would He look like? Who would He spend time with? What kind of house would he own, and what kind of car would he drive? These are important questions to apprentices of Jesus, aren’t they? These are the very questions on which we are to base our lives!

I don’t think Jesus would be boring. And I don’t think Jesus would be “normal.” I don’t even think Jesus would be “cool.” As Shane Claiborne wrote, “You don’t get crucified for being cool; you get crucified for living radically different from the norms of all that is cool in the world. And it’s usually the cool people who get the most ticked off, since you are disturbing their order.”

The call to be different is the narrow way described by Jesus.

If we are truly interested in whether or not we are following in the steps of Jesus, Mahatma Gandhi may have given the best advice on how to know when he said, “Ask the poor. They will tell you who the Christians are.” Is anyone brave enough to ask?

Third, following in the steps of Jesus costs us everything we’ve got.

In our text, verses 24 and 25 in particular, Peter explains to us a purpose of the Cross: it was so that we might die, and then live. This heals us, he claims. Death, followed by life. Our problem is with the dying part. I wonder if we have ever truly died to ourselves, or, to put it Jesus’s way, given up everything to follow Him.

In Thomas a Kempis’s 15th century masterpiece, The Imitation of Christ (appropriately titled for tonight’s message by the way), he writes, “Whoever desires to understand and take delight in the words of Christ must strive to conform his whole life to Him.” It seems we need to be reminded of the “whole life” commitment.

In an age where we still divide life into the sacred and secular (where “church” is an adjective to mark the difference – a “church” event versus the rest of life), and when we still talk of a difference between “full-time” Christian service and “part-time” Christian service, we need to be reminded that following Jesus involves every part of our lives. Period. Until everything we do – in word or deed - is done “in the name of Jesus,” then we haven’t died completely, and we cannot be living for righteousness.

Anne Tyler’s wonderful novel, Saint Maybe, introduces us to Ian and the mess that was his life. Unknown to anyone else, a statement he made in anger led his inebriated brother to suicide. His brother’s suicide led to his sister-in-law’s drug-induced death, leaving an orphaned child to be cared for by Ian’s aging parents. One night he happened upon a church service in a strip mall called, The Church of the Second Chance. During prayer time, out of nowhere, he asked for forgiveness for the mess of his life, and much to his surprise after the service, Reverend Emmett asked him what he needed forgiveness for! Ian decided to share his secret, and after his confession, he asked Reverend Emmett if he thought he had been forgiven. The preacher shockingly replied, “Goodness, no!” An argument ensued between the two on the nature of God, and Reverend Emmett explained his answer by saying that anyone could just say the words, but the question was whether or not he would do anything about it. For starters, would he care for the orphaned child his sins left behind? This changed the complete direction of his life.

Later in the novel, Ian’s parents grew concerned that this church he had stumbled on was some sort of a cult. Ian’s father exclaimed, “Our church never asked us to abandon our entire way of life.” Ian’s response summarizes my message tonight: “Well, maybe it should have.”

Yes, maybe we should have. And maybe we should now. Maybe we should ask everyone claiming to be Christian to take seriously the call to live our lives following in the steps of Jesus. Maybe we should consider abandoning our wealth and privilege and move our lives to those living in the margins of our society. As the early Christians did. As Jesus did. Maybe we have a lot to consider.

My assigned title comes from 1st Peter 2: 21. Eugene Peterson, in The Message, does his best to offer this verse in our contemporary language. Listen closely: “This is the kind of life you’ve been invited into, the kind of life Christ lived. He suffered everything that came his way so you would know it could be done, and also know how to do it, step-by-step.”

Yes, I’m convinced that we have a major problem on our hands that can no longer be tolerated. We are satisfied admiring, believing in, and worshiping Jesus, but we aren’t called to that. We are called to follow him step by step. I wonder how many of us are truly interested.

Recommended Reading:
* The Divine Conspiracy by Dallas Willard
* Pilgrim Heart by Darryl Tippens
* The Irresistible Revolution by Shane Claiborne
* The Imitation of Christ by Thomas a Kempis
* Telling the Truth by Frederick Buechner
* The Hauerwas Reader by Stanley Hauerwas
* Saint Maybe by Anne Tyler

* In His Steps by Charles Sheldon
* The Message by Eugene Peterson
* The Holy Bible (Revised Standard Version)
* “What is the Emerging Church?” by Scot McKnight

Random Tuesday Morning Thoughts

2007-04-17T10:33:00.000-07:00

It's still morning out here, so deal with it you all of you East Coast losers.

1. More people need to know about The Teaching Company. For a decent price you can listen to some very good lectures on just about anything you want. Check 'em out.

2. First Lady Laura Bush is speaking at Pepperdine's Graduation and I'm not going. Not out of protest or anything (I'd actually like to hear her), but because I forgot to RSVP reserving my seat at graduation. I'm not all that upset. Because I'm not a good American.

3. Yesterday's LA Times had a cover story on families living on Skid Row and holy cow was it depressing. Anyone ever seen Skid Row? Imagine hell with prostitutes and that'll give you a good idea. And there are kids who live there. There's a controversial new plan to remove the kids from Skid Row, even if that means taking them away from the parents -- who aren't necessarily bad people -- they just can't provide for their families.

4. Men's Volleyball may be the most exciting sport you never seen. It helps that Pepperdine is #1 in the nation, but it was exciting last year when we weren't #1.

5. My roommate from my days in Syracuse, Phil Lamarche, called last night. He's doing a book tour right now. His first book, American Youth, came out last week. The guy is a great writer. Buy his book. I'll try to do a review of it, you know, whenever I do my next review (sometime in August, I suspect). He used to get up at 4 in the a.m. and write until 10 or 11 in the a.m. And then he'd go kayaking or hiking or skiing. He couldn't stand being inside all day. But he loved to write. So he sacrificed sleep. So I'm pulling for his book to do well. And it really is good, even if I am biased and would say that regardless of it's readability.

6. Not to get all political and whatnot -- but a his speach yesterday, President Bush once again linked Iraq to the September 11th attacks. How many commissions do we need to say there was no connection before he'll quit making the connection?

7. I'm on the final leg of Pynchon's Against the Day. I hit a wall somewhere around page 600, but it's picked back up.

The Houseflies Have Fallen Off the Wagon

2007-04-12T09:48:00.000-07:00

I've listened to Don Imus exactly once in my life. I was on a trip to New Jersey from Arkansas with a couple of friends, one of whom was a big Imus fan. I was tired and don't recall the first thing about the show other than hearing the phrase "Imus in the Morning" over and over.

I didn't know he was still on the radio until the controversy we've all grown weary of blew up however many days ago.

I'm not really sure if there's too much to say about the story that hasn't been said already. I'll point you to a great article by Marcus Mabry, which is more thoughtful and thought-provoking than anything else I've read about the Imus incident.

I especially like Mabry's comments about how African-American politicians and journalists have tolerated Imus's racism for a long, long time because he is so powerful: "That African-African Congressman Harold Ford, former U.S. senator Bill Bradley and female journalists like The New York Times’s Maureen Dowd and NBC’s Andrea Mitchell appear on Imus shows, in part, shows that his racist behavior has been tolerable, if distasteful, to politicians and our industry." They tolerate it because, as one of the women on the Rutgers team noted: they have to get their voice heard, and if it means going on the Imus show, then that's what they have to do. That should be troubling to a lot of us -- just think of having to go on the show of someone you find offensive just to have your voice heard. Hopefully this whole incident will help change this. But.

Imus's response, I'm not so sure about. He's said that he'll have a black guest on his show everyday, which I don't really think that's the best approach to "diversity." That's the kind of nod to diversity that doesn't truly get at the heart of the matter. It's a legalistic approach, and it doesn't necessarily change much -- because it doesn't really change a person's heart and attitude and worldview. However, there is a great quote by Imus on the second page of the linked article, which if he follows through on, is a great approach to diversity: “And me and the rest of white America ought to understand what’s going on in the black community and I’ll make an effort to do that...I will do that.” Trying to understand what's going on in the lives of people who have been left out of the circle of power in this country for centuries, asking questions about why it might be important to have a black guest on his show everyday, asking questions about why offensive jokes are allowed on the airwaves that are regulated by our government -- that's the best response to the whole incident. Hopefully Imus will follow through on that last promise, and hopefully his influence will help the rest of us as well.

Yeah, That's the Ticket

2007-04-03T08:06:00.000-07:00

Even though I'm not around as much lately, I'm always looking for cool stuff to share with you all. This article by Slate's Dahlia Lithwick actually caused me to tear up a little (probably just a hormone thing, but I do agree with the sentiment). She's talking about how a collaborative writing project with someone with whom she disagreed politically was a healing experience that compared very favorably to the screeching "performance art" that passes for political discourse these days -- and she includes her own work in this assessment. She touches on some themes that I have mentioned before, such as the deleterious effects of political balkanization. Now everyone join hands and sing a chorus of "Abraham, Martin and John" ...

Candidates on Executive Power

2007-04-02T13:31:00.000-07:00

So I've been going on about the Bush administration's extraordinary claims (and actions) regarding the power of the Executive Branch for quite some time. A while back, I said every candidate for president in 2008 should be forced to publicly state their position on the power of the executive; anyone who isn't willing to totally repudiate the Bush view is unfit to hold any position in government, much less the presidency.

Here are 2 of the front-running Republicans, going on the record at a conservative get together over the weekend. Rudy Giuliani: I agree with Bush, but, golly gee, I hope not to have to use my superpowers too often. Mitt Romney: Hmmmm, maybe Bush is right; I need to consult my lawyer before answering.

I honestly cannot comprehend how anybody could think it's appropriate for the president -- any president -- to have the power "to arrest U.S. citizens with no review." To me, it's like saying black is white, the Revolutionary War never happened, and the Constitution doesn't exist. What was the point of all that if a single official can deprive any (which is the same thing as every) citizen of his/her liberty without having to bring any charges or otherwise justify that action in any way to anybody?

Can somebody here explain to me what the argument for this is that so many in the GOP seem to find convincing? Seriously. I mean, they don't even seem to think there's anything remarkable about it. To me, it's quite possibly the silliest thing any post-colonial American politican has ever said.

What am I missing?

War and Peace, sans Tolstoy

2007-03-29T16:41:00.000-07:00

In the recent (and no doubt soon to be revived) debate over the House and Senate Iraq funding bills, all the heat was centered on the bills' inclusion of a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq.

The argument against a timetable was, as best I can tell, two-fold: we don't want the enemy to know what our timetable is, and Congress should leave the timetable-setting to our commanders in the field. The first one I'll readily grant. I don't love the fact that the timetable in these bills is public. It's far from ideal.

The second argument sounded reasonable at first, until I started thinking about it. Then it made no sense at all. When it comes to tactical planning and even in-theater strategic planning, yes, absolutely, the commanders in the field should be making the decisions. But the beginnings and endings of wars are always political decisions, and -- except in military dictatorships -- they're always made by civilian politicians. Civilian politicians decide when a war will start, and they must also be the ones to decide when it will end.

According to the logic of the GOP's argument, once a war has been started, the American people can't stop it. No one can stop it except "the commanders in the field," because no one can decide when it will end except those commanders; and if you can't decide when a thing will end, you can't decide that it will end. Not even the Pentagon brass or the commander-in-chief could end it, since they aren't in the field. That's not a tenable position for a democracy to be in. The military works for the civilians. It goes when the civilians say go, and it stops when the civilians say stop. In between, the military commanders should be predominantly in control; but those two endpoints are completely the purview of the civilians.

So not only can Congress decide when a war will end (whether instantly or on a timetable), they must. Ultimately, it's their responsibility. Some, particularly on the right, argue that, no, this is all up to the president, who's in charge of foreign policy and is commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Personally, I have a hard time squaring that broad reading of presidential powers with Article I of the Constitution.

Regardless, the GOP acknowledges that Congress can end a war at any time when it points out that Congress can, of course, simply cut off the funding. But that then invalidates their "commanders in the field" argument against having a timetable. If Congress simply cuts off the funding instantly and immediately, like turning off a faucet, it's imposing a timetable: get everybody out right now. And if Congress can impose that timetable -- one that endangers our soldiers -- surely it can impose another -- one that doesn't. Put differently, if it can cut the funding all at once and leave everybody in the lurch, it can also say, "We're going to cut the funding by 30% on such-and-such a date, another 30% by such-and-such later date, and zero it out on such-and-such still later date. Commanders, plan your withdrawal accordingly." Should the commanders have input into those dates? Absolutely. Should they decide them? Absolutely not.

The GOP knows all this, of course. They don't really mean what they say (one hopes). All they want is to force the congressional Democrats into a false dichotomy: either cut off the funds precipitously and get a lot of our soldiers killed, or just sign the checks and butt out until we're ready to impose a timetable.

I've stated my position on the Iraq War here before. I think it was, at best, an obvious and horribly foolhardy mistake, but now that we're there, we should fight to win. So I have mixed feelings about the House and Senate bills. I would be fully opposed to them if not for the fact that it's clear to me that we, as a nation, are not going to commit fully to this fight. Not even the people who led us into it are fully committed to it. That being the case, I grudgingly lean slightly toward thinking the best course probably is to get out.

But regardless of what I think about this particular war, it's important to remember that, in America, war and peace are always political decisions. Not military ones.

The Future of Values Voting?

2007-03-27T11:40:00.000-07:00

Here's some reading material that might be of interest, if you're interested in politics and/or what Americans think on the so-called "values" issues. It's a study of such by the Pew Center, and it suggests some surprising long-term trends.

Since Noone's Reading Anyway...

2007-03-26T11:27:00.000-07:00

[Warning: This post is a bit disgusting.]

I was on a trip with some friends in college when we stopped at a park and there was a dead fish on the bank of the lake and it was a bit bloated. And one of my friends threw a rock at the fish and it exploded. Lesson: don't throw things at dead, bloated fish.

It's probably best not to do anything with dead, bloated fish. As some people in Tainan, Tawain, learned.

A Belated Update on Spring Break

2007-03-22T12:42:00.000-07:00

Living and working on a beach, I sometimes forget when I'm on break and when I'm working. So I forgot to give all of you an update on how my Spring Break went a couple of weeks ago. Which I'm certain you are eager to hear about. (And my thanks to Whitney for tanning for me in my absence.)

1. I learned something about myself: good weather follows me whereversoever I go. It was sunny and 75 everyday I was home. People should pay me to visit them.

2. Played lots of swords with my nephews. They love swords. And hitting things in general. Joshy -- the 5 year old -- is well on his way to becoming a major league baseball player. He can hit the snot out of a ball. Plus he's cute in his helmet.

3. I didn't get to read as much as I wanted, so I'm only around page 500 on the Pynchon book, which I find myself going back and reading passages of just because they're so good. It's really not a book for people who don't have a couple of months to devote to one book. But if you do, pick it up. (Also, it's one of those books that I was having a problem with creating different "voices" in my head for, so I downloaded the audio-version via iTunes, and now I listen to an excellent reader read the book whilst following along in the book with my eyes. I do this occassionally, and it is a great way to read books -- especially long ones, I found.)

4. When a woman is very, very great with child, you can actually see the child stretching in her belly. Didn't know that, not having been around someone as great with child before as my friend was a couple of weeks ago.

5. I still love my mom's cooking (have you ever had fried mashed potatoes? mmmmm....). And dad's. He makes a mean pizza. And it don't cost a thing.

6. Despite all of my boasts of living on the beach (which I actually don't live on the beach -- I live about 8 miles from it), I think I've matured a bit. I was determined in my early 20s to get as far away from my hometown as I could. And I did. But I really like going back now. I look forward to it. Because of my nephews and my family and because my friends there are the best I've ever had -- we always pick up right where we left off. And they let me say whatever I want without judging me. And they're good fun to be around.

7. If you're ever in the Memphis airport...okay, so I'm not one of those people who likes to people-watch. When I'm in an airport, I have my iPod on, a book open, and a don't-even-think-about-talking-to-me look on my face. So I rarely look up. Because people in airports LOVE to talk. But I was sitting in the Memphis airport, and I think I saw Tom Arnold (of Rossanne fame). About 5 times. Is it Memphis? Or do a lot of people look like Tom Arnold?

I think that's about it. It was fun to be home. It's fun to be back. I live in fear of the day I have to get a job in a world where there is no spring break.

Business Socks

2007-03-14T13:49:00.000-07:00

Seeing as I posted something about YouTube yesterday, I thought I'd share one of my favorite video clips with you today. It's a two-man band called Flight of the Conchords. Kind of a comedy duo with guitars sort of thing. Anyway. The song is called "Business Time."

Go HERE now. And enjoy.

I Was Wondering How Long This Would Take

2007-03-13T11:26:00.000-07:00

Someone is finally sueing YouTube.

I remember a friend telling me a few months ago that buying Tivo was a waste of money because you could just go to YouTube and watch whatever you wanted whenever you wanted. And I have a couple of friends who are addicted to YouTube -- they are always watching clips, hours on end. I've not gotten into the craze too much, so I don't know much about it. And I don't know anything about intellectual property laws. But it does seem to me that YouTube isn't going out of its way to stop illegal postings. (It's the copyright holder's responsibility to report any wrongdoing to YouTube, seems to be the current policy -- which seems almost backwards to me.)

Hopefully we'll get to have another Napster-like legal battle where television stars will appear before Congress to testify about intellectual property. I loved watching the drummer from Metallica testify. And he wasn't even funny. So John Stewart could really do something fun.

Anyway, a couple of quotes from the linked article:

Bruce Sunstein, co-founder of intellectual property law firm Bromberg & Sunstein in Boston, said YouTube was still in the early stages of what was likely to be a “very long working-out of arrangements” with the owners of broadcast copyrights.

“Finding a way of peaceful coexistence is quite a struggle,” Sunstein said. “Google’s motto is ’Don’t be Evil,’ and you could argue that with YouTube that motto is wearing a little thin.”

The Rule of Law? Not So Much.

2007-03-09T12:59:00.000-08:00

You may have seen today's headlines about the FBI's illegal use of National Security Letters to obtain private information on American citizens. Those reports don't mention that issue's conection with another one, one that I've been ringing the bell about around here for a long time: presidential signing statements and, more broadly, the expansion of executive power.

Glenn Greenwald has a brilliant post about both issues and the connection between them, here.

Guilty Scooter

2007-03-06T10:52:00.000-08:00

Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff found guilty of obstruction of justice, perjury, and lying to the FBI.

A Personal/Political/Religious Post

2007-03-05T16:01:00.000-08:00

A while back, Sandi mentioned that being the only non-religious person here was a bit isolating for her. I wasn't sure how to respond to that. More correctly, I wasn't sure if I should respond to that. The response itself, had I chosen to make it, would've been, "You're not, actually. I'm not religious, either."

I don't mean anything clever by that, as in the chirpy, "I'm a Christian, but I'm not religious," by which one means one is religious but not, supposedly, in a bumptious way. I mean I'm not religious, as in, "I'm not pregnant." Not religious. Agnostic.

Or is that what I mean?

In a sense, I suppose I'm the ultimate agnostic: I don't even know if I'm agnostic or not. Spiritually, I am. Is there a god? I don't know and I don't think it's knowable. I can only say that neither nature nor experience inclines me to believe there is -- at least, not one worth knowing. Is there a spiritual dimension to human life, of the kind spoken of in Christianity and some other religions? I don't know and I don't think it's knowable, but it doesn't ring true. Is there a heaven and a hell? I don't know. I don't even think the question is worth asking.

I'm pretty sure all that makes "agnostic" the correct box for me to check on the next census.

I certainly wouldn't check any of the boxes that would identify me with any church I'm familiar with, which, to varying degrees, is most of them. Churches and me, we're done with each other. That's been true for a while, now. The last time I went to church, I felt like I'd stepped onto the surface of Mars. I walked in, I turned around, I walked out. I haven't been back, and I don't miss it. Ever. Not even kinda. But I've been contemplating visiting one or two here in my new hometown. People keep saying it's the best place to meet people and build a social circle, which is something I'd like to do. But then I start looking at the local churches' websites and I just can't bring myself to go. It just isn't worth it. Go back into that world? Nuh-uh. As the mapmakers used to say, there be dragons there.

I don't look down my nose when I talk about this. Along with the relief I feel at not going, there's regret at not being able to go and not being able to believe. Nor do I like talking about it. Those here who know me will have some idea why that is. In just about every possible way, my life would be easier if I could make a churchgoing, spiritual-realm-believing life work for me. But I've tried and tried and tried, and it just won't take. It's like transplanting a mismatched organ into a kidney patient. The longer I try to make it work, the sicker I get.

So in all those ways, I'm not religious, and you're not alone, Sandi. In other ways, though, I'm very much not only religious, but specifically Christian.

The broad moral principles of Christianity are central to who I am. I've invested a lot of my life (and student loans) in pursuing a better understanding of them and of what they've meant to Christians at various times in history. I've worked hard at internalizing my best understanding of it all, and while I've certainly not entirely succeeded, I've succeeded well enough that I'll never be not Christian in my basic notions of right, wrong, and what a life well lived looks like. I'll likely never be a churchgoer or an apologist for the existence of god, but I'll just as likely always be smitten with Jesus' life and teachings.

Whatever that makes me -- Christian, heretic, lukewarm, lapsed Catholic, casual Protestant, etc. -- I guess that's what I am. But it is what I am. "Here I stand. I can do no other." The rest I leave to God, if there is one.

Bacon and Eggs With Cornbread

2007-03-02T11:04:00.000-08:00

Cedric “Cornbread” Maxwell found himself in trouble this past week. Maxwell is a radio announcer for the Boston Celtics; a team he helped win two NBA championships over the course of his eleven-year career. (Side note for basketball fans: Did you know the Celtics retired his jersey? Since when do players who average twelve points / six boards a game get their jerseys retired?) Cedric “Cornbread” Maxwell is a goofy announcer. He literally quacks on the air for some reason, along with other sundry peculiarities.

Violet Palmer is an NBA referee. She, in fact, is the first female referee in NBA history, Further, she is the first female official in the world of United States professional sports, having broken the gender barrier in October, 1997.

Then there was Monday.

In response to a Palmer call during the game between the Boston Celtics and the Houston Rockets Monday night, Maxwell said on-air that Palmer should “go back to the kitchen,” followed by, “Go in there and make me some bacon and eggs, would you?”

Maxwell’s comments didn’t go over very well on, oh, say a million fronts.

In response to the firestorm of controversy he unleashed with his comments, he offered a public apology Wednesday, saying, “If I said anything that might have been insensitive or sexist in any way, then I apologize because she worked extremely hard to get where she is now, end of quote.”

This apology wasn’t received too well either by the folks I listened to on ESPN Radio, pinpointing the “if” in the apology. I listened to the callers offer their opinions. One mentioned that if this would have been a “race” comment then Maxwell would have lost his job, but since it was gender-related he was treated differently. Another wondered that if it would have been different had it been a homosexual rather than a feminist issue.

All this led me to do some thinking. How do we define these issues anyway? If Maxwell would have made fun of Dick Bavetta as being a “slow white boy who couldn’t outrun Charles Barkley” then it wouldn’t have made headlines. Or if he would have made a classic “black on black” remark, it wouldn’t have garnered attention either.

So where is the standard?

I came to a few conclusions. Feel free to roundly criticize them all.

* First, there’s the personal end of these things. I don’t know if Violet Palmer was offended or not, but either way she deserves a personal apology from Maxwell. Personal insults deserve personal apologies.

* Second, insulting a general class of people deserves an apology, too. I think that was what Maxwell was trying to do with his “if” apology (given the benefit of the doubt).

* But third, and most important for discussion I believe, insults should be considered on a level considering the effect it might have on oppression. I don’t think the hypothetical insult of calling Dick Bavetta a “slow white guy” will do much to keep Caucasian athletes from getting a track scholarship. I’m still fairly convinced that white American men (being one, myself) don’t have a lot to worry about in the world of oppression when it comes to those three specific characteristics (white…American…men…).

Because Maxwell’s comment presents itself as one that if perpetuated could hinder the future of gender equality in professional sports, then he deserved the firestorm he received. And in my humble opinion, future stupid remarks in this genre should be judged by a similar standard.

Spring Break

2007-03-01T16:02:00.000-08:00

I love that I'm 32 and still get Spring Break. When I was an undergrad, it was a big deal. We started planning it in November or so. My friends and I went skiing one year and to Florida two years. Our spring breaks were mostly mild -- nothing Girls-Gone-Wild worthy. But I remember getting excited about the plans. Even though most of the time we ended up just sitting on a beach or throwing a frisbee.

I still get excited. Although my planning started Sunday night when I bought my ticket for Memphis. JU is picking me up from the airport tomorrow and we're meeting another friend for some shenanigans in Memphis. Then it's home for some playing in the dirt with my nephews.

I just finished the last of my student conferences for the day, and I've now officially got spring break fever.

Things I plan to do over the break (other than play with my nephews):

1) Read a healthy portion of Against the Day by Thomas Pynchon. I'm 300 pages in and love it. If you like rambling narratives with odd story lines and some a-little-too-clever dialogue, this is the book for you.

2) Buy a pair of cowboy boots. You can't find a decent pair in California. At least not at the beach.

3) Finish watching Season 2 of Gray's Anatomy. I know, I know. The Austin family makes me watch it when I go over to their house. The first couple of times, I pretended I was too good for such low-brow entertainment. But when it comes down to it, I have the world's biggest crush on Izzie and so there. I'm hooked.

4) Tell lots of obnoxious stories about movie stars and warm weather and dolphins. And show off my tan. Because while the rest of the world has been freezing this winter, we've been basking in perfect weather. I didn't even know what basking meant until this winter. Now I know that it means: I'm luckier than you and I shall let you know about it.

5) Construct the perfect NCAA bracket.

6) Sleep. Unless the flying squirrels are still in the walls of my parents' home. In which case I'll neglect sleep in order to find and kill the squirrels. Then I'll sleep.

I think that's about it. Unlike Al, I like to not make too many plans for myself (have you read his blog? He does more on his days off than I do in a semester). As you can tell, I'm not an adrenaline junkie. I like the quiet life. I like to not pack my days too full. I like to bask.

Didn't We Used to have a Sports-Anthem Columnist?: A Post About Less than Nothing

2007-02-26T07:41:00.000-08:00

During my first year of college, some poor administrator found it a good idea to give me and a friend complete control over the music played during the timeouts of our school’s basketball games.* We were good. We hit the unsuspecting masses with a steady dose of Nine Inch Nails’s "Head Like a Hole" (I had something like 9 remixes of this song), stuff from U2's Pop album (my favorite being the last song on that album which is this really depressing song sung by Johnny Cash to a really cool, almost techno beat), and then some real-deal rave music from Europe that was laced with random lines from Monty Python.

Our efforts were never fully appreciated. We were ironic and cool and toyed with our crowd’s emotions in ways they weren’t comfortable with. We transgressed the sacred bounds of the "jock rock" genre usually played during sporting events – Van Halen’s "Jump", anything by AC/DC (especially "Thunderstruck") or Ozzy Osbourne ("Crazy Train" and then some other song that is used all the time which really does have a cool guitar intro), that techno-y song used during wrestling (the one that comes after: "Let’s Get Ready to Rumbuuuuuuuuuuuuul), or something by The Village People. But the crowds didn’t want ironic. They didn’t want to hear about Johnny Cash leaving his house as a young man with a Bible and a Gun. They wanted to simply get pumped up by loud music, not contemplate "god-money" to whom they were bowing down in servitude and from whom they would get what they deserved.

I think we lasted two games.

It still amazes me that the music played at sporting events has remained relatively untouched since, say, 1985. These are sacred hymns with which you do not mess. Sure, there are occasional additions to this musical canon, but there is some rigorous, tacitly agreed upon standard the songs must meet in order to not confuse fans.**

So I’ve been very happy that Pepperdine has added a new song to its arsenal of time-out music. As fans here, we are still subjected to Van Halen and Ozzy and YMCA (WHY does everyone still think it’s cool to spell out, bodily, YMCA?). And we still get ready to rumble. We even go down to Cotton-Eyed Joe’s more often than I’d like. But, now, we also: Take On Me, Take Me On. Who knew Aha was so inspirational? But it’s such a nice change of pace. It’s nice to hear a gym or stadium full of people talking and pretending not to listen to the synthesized music until the end of the chorus. When everyone stops mid-sentence, mid-conversation, to shamelessly sing that one high note. You know how it goes: "Take on me, take me on, I’ll be [something], [sooooomething something something], TAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKE."

It’s the final "Take" sung by 2500 people in unison that brings on the goose bumps. The guy in charge of the music at our games – and I have some serious issues with his selections most of the time, as he’s not willing to take chances – turns off the music and lets the crowd’s TAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKE lead us back into the action on the court or the field.

Maybe this is a nation-wide thing. Maybe it’s been around for a while and I’ve simply not been paying attention. But until otherwise informed, I’m giving lots of credit to the guy at Pepperdine who plays Aha proudly. Who has done what my friend and I couldn’t do with Nine Inch Nails and some really cool, if underappreciated, techno music. He’s made them relevant, even essential, to the sporting experience at Pepperdine. It’s good times.

And, yes, I hope this song is stuck in your head now.

* I think my friend and I owed -- and subsequently abused -- this privilege because Terry Austin, who frequents this site, was the guy who introduced the players who subbed in and out of the games, and he put in a good word for us. I also think he helped pick some of the music, although he kept his name out of the scandal somehow.

** For some reason, rap songs aren’t put through the same rigorous scrutiny. They can be played almost as soon as they are released without the usual 10 to 15 year waiting-to-see-if-this-song-will-truly-pump-us-up tests.

What's Going On?

2007-02-23T09:05:00.000-08:00

Warning: this post isn't about anything in particular, and it's definitely not (directly) about politics.

It's just my guilt post for not having been around much lately. Oh, I have been around, in the sense that I check the blog almost every day. And in the sense that each morning I check my usual suspects for topics that might make good posts.

Every time I come up empty.

On the one hand, I am really happy with my life. (This despite the fact that my beloved cat Simon passed away suddenly last week, which was devastating). But I also feel very walled off from the world, by choice, but this leaves me nothing to contribute here.

I do feel like a bad person about this, and maybe I have a biological excuse or maybe I don't, but I just don't give a damn what's going on in Iraq, in the Scooter Libby trial, in the 2008 presidential race, or in Congress. I could really not care less. Those things have nothing to do with me or my life. In the same way, I am utterly disinterested in work except for the righteous indignation that my employers keep us feeling, well, pretty much every day. The whole thought of caring about anything outside my own home, family, and close friends is exhausting. I just don't have anything to give to that right now. I don't know if I ever will again.

I do still read the New York Times (well, I scan the headlines anyway) and of course watch the Daily Show, so I have a basic understanding of what's going on and if something major happens I'll be apprised of it. But I feel like the stage of my life where I was passionate and fired up about things is over. Now, my baby's kicks are just a million times more interesting than what Hillary said about Obama this week. In a way, it's sad, because my youthful idealism is gone (didn't take long, did it?). I no longer have faith that there's much if anything that I can do to change the world other than doing my own small part by raising my children to be good people and setting a good example for others around me in my own life.

This goes hand in hand with my complete loss of interest in having a "career," whatever that even means. I feel like I was sold a bill of goods that work is supposed to be a great source of personal fulfillment. It took me almost six years of working to realize that this is, for the vast majority of people, a big lie. Work is a means to an end, not an end in itself. People who want careers seem to, almost without exception, want them for self-aggrandizement even if their articulated reasons are altruistic. This goes for all politicians and high-profile activists even in causes I believe in. Especially living in D.C., I feel aberrant for just wanting to be an average person with an average life.

One small anecdote from my office: our office manager said to one of the associates, who is a real clotheshorse and dresses very nicely all the time, that she was the only one of us who came to work "looking like a lawyer every day" and that she (the office manager) was going to suggest to the partners that all the attorneys be required to wear suits every day. I found that so offensive that I now find it difficult to be polite to this woman. (For the record, I wear jeans every day that I don't have a deposition, meeting with opposing counsel, or court hearing). I hate suits and have never felt comfortable in them -- I feel like a little girl playing dress-up. I realized the other day that the reason I hate suits so much is that for me, wearing one is making a statement that I think I'm someone important. Because I don't think I am someone important and find all of that kind of posturing and formality to be tiresome and pointless, I prefer to dress like who I am.

I don't know if any of this makes sense or not, but I thought I'd at least try to give an explanation for my long absence. I'm still here, I just don't know if I have anything meaningful to contribute.

All-Time Gold Glove Team

2007-02-22T11:17:00.000-08:00

Rawlings is hosting an on-line vote for the All-Time Gold Glove Team. (Cast your ballot HERE. )

Since all baseball fans are eagerly anticipating a good argument, let’s let one loose here.:
* Who do you think deserves recognition as the best of the best at each position?
* Who do you think is the best of the best across all positions?

PITCHER:
Bob Gibson
Jim Kaat
Greg Maddux

CATCHER:
Johnny Bench
Bob Boone
Bill Freehan
Ivan Rodriguez
Jim Sundberg

FIRST BASE:
Keith Hernandez
Don Mattingly
Wes Parker
Vic Power
J.T. Snow
Bill White

SECOND BASE:
Roberto Alomar
Bill Mazeroski
Joe Morgan
Bobby Richardson
Ryne Sandberg
Frank White

THIRD BASE:
Buddy Bell
Ken Boyer
Eric Chavez
Brooks Robinson
Scott Rolen
Mike Schmidt

SHORTSTOP:
Luis Aparicio
Mark Belanger
Dave Concepion
Derek Jeter
Ozzie Smith
Omar Vizquel

OUTFIELD:
Paul Blair
Roberto Clemente
Andre Dawson
Jim Edmonds
Dwight Evans
Curt Flood
Ken Griffey, Jr.
Torii Hunter
Andruw Jones
Al Kaline
Garry Maddox
Willie Mays
Kirby Puckett
Ichiro Suzuki
Larry Walker
Devon White
Dave Winfield
Carl Yastrzemski

Who is Tariq Ramadan?

2007-02-20T19:21:00.000-08:00

"The Muslim Martin Luther King" seems likely to be an overstatement, but this guy does sound like a genuine grown-up, and grown-ups are sadly lacking on all sides of the debates within and about Islam.

Update on War & Peace

2007-02-20T14:47:00.000-08:00

I'm now 625 pages through this monstrosity (1455 pages total), and I am definitely in for the duration. I don't know how to describe the book exactly, but it sort of seems like it's the book for the person who can't decide whether to watch The Young and the Restless or a John Wayne flick. I'm not a fan of either, but for whatever reason Tolstoy has me.

The book I bought has a cheat sheet prior to the story's beginning that outlines the major characters by family. This will be my format in my attempt at an update.

THE BEZUKHOVS: This should actually be singular. The Bezukhov story is all about Pierre so far. The Count's death opened the story, and after buying his cousins out (the Mamontov sisters), Pierre (the Count's illegitimate son yet total heir) has been one of the novel's major characters ever since. Pierre is an odd guy from day one, but I can't help but like him. He is unconventional to say the least: definitely not the typical high society type. His marriage is weird, and his sudden conversion to the world of the Masons even more strange, but I find his thoughtful demeanor compelling. But he's slipping into depression, and I'm worried for him.

THE KURAGINS: What a bunch of jerks! Prince Vasily is a spoiled old man with kids who followed in his footsteps. Anatol can't seem to keep his pants on, and his brother, Ippolit, is an Idiot. Ellen seemed to have the best shot at being likable, but she has failed miserably. Her marriage to Pierre has been a disaster as to the marriage, though she has risen to the apex of Petersburg society what with her beauty & money & connections. But I can't stand her.

THE BOLKONSKYS: Now here is my hands-down favorite family, though the patriarch is a flat-out jerk. I want to like him sort of as a mad genius type, but the mental abuse of his daughter is a bit too much to stomach. Prince Andrei (his son) remains my favorite character, though I'm not sure why. He seems arrogant in that aloof sort of way, but something about him I like. He is definitely his own man, so maybe that's it. After the death in childbirth of his pretty little wife, Lisa, and his war injury, he went AWOL from life for quite some time, but little Natasha has brought him back. I'll admit I never saw that coming. As for Marya (Andrei's sister), she's a tragic sort of girl: very religious, but in a naively sincere way. She's kind of too pure and too ugly for Russian society, and I'm wondering if she really will pursue her secret plan to hit the road with the homeless religious nuts that she knows. If so, I wonder what will happen to Andrei & Lisa'a son whom Marya is raising.

THE ROSTOVS: I think this is the family the readers are supposed to like, but I just can't fall in love with them. The Count seems a nice guy, but sort of stupid - the kind of guy that comes across as wasting what could have been a productive life. His wife isn't much different. Much of the novel revolves around their children, Nikolai and Natasha (their other son, Petya, is a young teen boy, and as with most teen boys, isn't very noteworthy yet; their oldest daughter, Vera, is now married thank goodness, and we're all glad her snitty self isn't much of a character either). One can't really hate Nikolai, but I just don't care much for him either. I can't explain why. Natasha, on the other hand, is so easy to fall in love with, and I have. She and Prince Andrei were independently my favorite characters, and when they fell in love with each other it caught me completely offguard. I never saw that coming. There are reasons I probably shouldn't like Natasha - so bubbly and full of herself - but I adore her, as does anyone who comes into contact with her. Their cousin, Sonya, is a tragic figure, too. She is a minor character so far, quite humble and perfect and deeply in love with Nikolai. I can't help but like her, but I know so little.

THE DRUBETSKOYS: This family is simply a mother and son, a poor family to the high society crowd who find ways to milk their relationships into getting ahead one way or another. I can't stand them. Anna is openly conniving, and Boris has found out how to network his way to the top. I'm glad his relationship with Natasha was a childhood romance that got nipped in the bud when he began to fall for her again, and I'm afraid his friendship with Ellen might be trouble down the road. The Drubetskoys are simply a couple of suck-ups.

That's the story so far. In a hundred pages, I'll officially be halfway through. I'll keep you updated along the way - since I doubt anyone else will actually read it!

A Litmus Test

2007-02-17T15:03:00.000-08:00

I have something political to blog about, after all: my proposed litmus test for 2008 presidential contenders. Here it is. Every candidate for the presidency (and the vice-presidency, once we get to that point) should be forced to state for the record their view of the constitutional power of the executive branch.

Is there such a thing as a "unitary executive" power? Can the president simply sign legislation and ignore the parts he doesn't like? If so, how is that different from a line-item veto, the unconstitutionality of which has been established? What are the limits on the president's commander-in-chief authority? Are they different in wartime? What is the proper role of the vice-presidency, and what limits on its authority exist? To what extent is either office constitutionally empowered to act in absolute secrecy?

Since journalists are timid about putting any pointed questions to politicians these days, much less a string of them, a briefer way of asking these questions would be: Do you share the views of the Bush administration?

Anyone who answers in anything but a decided, unqualified, emphatic negative is unfit to hold any office in the executive branch.

It'll be interesting to see if anyone asks any of the candidates about this. Maybe some of them will volunteer their positions without being asked. Maybe even make a campaign issue of it. I doubt it, though. Politicians don't like to limit the powers of the office they're seeking -- GOP candidates for Congress during a Republican administration being the only exception. (The modern Republican congressman is something the founding fathers never imagined possible.)

Didn't We Used to Have a Sports-Columnist?

2007-02-15T11:01:00.000-08:00

There's cheating in NASCAR! The purest form of sport.

And advertisments at Wrigley! The purist of sports venues.

Just saying.

A Giant Sucking Sound

2007-02-14T19:55:00.000-08:00

It's been a big ol' political vacuum hereabouts, lately. I guess that's my fault. I could say something about still not having matched Mikey's non-posting record, but I've guffed him enough.

Truth is, I just don't know what to say about politics these days. The '08 presidential race, well, I just don't give a darn at this stage. And I can't make heads ner tails of the rest. Here are the highlights.

Iraq

On the ground, it's hurry up and wait. The surge has begun. Sweeps through Baghdad have begun. Results thus far are mixed, but positive. I don't think that surprises anyone. The question remains what it always has been: will the Iraqis be able to make it last?

Back home, the Senate, supposedly the leading house when it comes to foreign policy, developed a sudden case of double trenchfoot and had to sit down and watch the House dash out in front. The Senate snafu reminds me of last fall's Foley scandal in the House, about which I believe I said the leadership hadn't exactly clothed itself in glory, however things turned out. Same thing, different house. Mitch McConnell was the only winner in the Senate, and even that was a Pyrrhic victory.

I guess the other Iraq news is the whole "Douglas Feith Is a Doody-Head" report that the DoD's inspector general released. It's good that that fact is being officially acknowledged, I suppose, but, really, is there anyone who didn't already know Feith was a doody-head? Gen. Tommy Franks -- a fellow member of Team Rumsfeld -- was known for referring to him as "the dumbest f-er on the planet." Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell's chief assistant at State, seconded the opinion. All in all, I think the IG's report is a bust. It amounts to praising with faint damn.

Iran

I alternate about 60 times a second between thinking we are and are not headed for military action there. I don't know what the Bush administration is trying to do. I don't know if they know. But if they're trying to keep everybody confused and off-balance (which is certainly possible), my personal testimony is that they're doing a boffo job so far, but that that kind of diplomacy takes a level of panache and judgment they just haven't demonstrated heretofore. More likely, their reeling gait reflects the White House's internal struggle between the ideologically-driven hardliners and the pragmatists. Upshot: I need a Dramamine.

North Korea

Score one for the pragmatists. John Bolton's head exploded, impaling dozens of trees and standers-by with mustache hairs. Yay, team.

Separation of Powers

It's entirely possible "Dick Cheney" will be the "Jim Crow" of the 21st century -- the name associated with the most poisonous influence on the nation's politics. The man really knows no bounds when it comes to making claims for uncheckable power. John Yoo, the most prominent scholarly advocate for the "unitary executive" theory, looks like an anarchist compared to Cheney. And Cheney doesn't limit his power grabs to the presidency. Even the vice-presidency -- an all but symbolic office in everyone else's eyes -- has enormous power that cannot be checked or even overseen. (Cheney's theory is that, constitutionally, the vice-presidency is not part of the executive branch. It's sort of a free-floating fourth branch, partly executive in nature, partly legislative. Somehow this all adds up to his not having to tell anybody anything about anything he does.)

Democratic Congress

Too soon to tell. Harry Reid still seems to be thinking like a minority leader. Nancy Pelosi is taking a stronger lead in the House. Committees in both houses are doing some very odd things -- like calling witnesses and asking them pointed questions. Even some Republicans are getting the hang of it. When Gen. Casey came up for hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee, John McCain and Lindsey Graham declared the entire fiasco in Iraq to be his fault. IOW, not President Bush's fault. It's hard to feel sorry for Casey, since he evidently was one of Rumsfeld's yes men, but McCain and Graham almost made it possible.

On the House Armed Services Appropriations subcommittee, there's the Jack 'n' Jerry Show, in which Jerry Lewis needles Jack Murtha, Murtha goes off like Vesuvius, and Jerry nudges the guy in the next chair over and grins like the Cheshire cat. Pretty funny stuff for a couple of guys who'd be well advised to keep a low profile. But, hey, at least they never shot anybody in the face, right?

The Libby Trial

Man. Everybody -- and I mean everybody -- who's had anything to do with this deal has come off looking like a blue-ribbon jackass on the original pattern. Journalists. Functionaries. Bureaucrats. Everybody.

Other

What am I overlooking?

Rulekeeping vs. Character Development

2007-02-08T09:47:00.000-08:00

I’m almost finished reading The Divine Conspiracy, and I’ll have to say that it has grown on me along the way. Lots of very good stuff interspersed with the rest, and though I’m not buying the whole farm, there has been much I’ve needed to hear.

I’ll post a few longer excerpts and ask for your thoughts in the next few weeks, but one specific sentence is enough for me to chew on today. Dallas Willard writes, “The Pharisee takes as his aim keeping the law rather than becoming the kind of person whose deeds naturally conform to the law.”

I think that is worth donning a bucket alongside Gomer Pyle and “taking a think.”

I was raised with heavy emphasis on religious “rules to keep” and little talk of “becoming a kind of person.” Though it makes perfect sense, it is a revolutionary thought to my religious system that Jesus was most interested in one becoming the type of person whose actions “naturally conform to the law” as opposed to getting people to do the right things.

Is it too bold to attribute the thought to Jesus, “If you do the right things, but without the right heart, than what’s the point?” I don’t think so. Even Paul’s soliloquy on love argues that religious heroism such as martyrdom and vows of poverty are useless without being “the kind of person” that would do these naturally.

I was raised to “hope” people become that kind of person, but it wasn’t the most important thing. “Being saved” WAS most important. From hell, that is. And for many that remains most important.

I don’t believe “being saved from hell” is the most important thing. Not anymore. Not even close.

We have so much else to “be saved” from before even worrying about what might happen when this life is over, and chief among these is being saved from ourselves.

Which would mean that “becoming” something trumps following a set of rules hands down.

A Modified Update on "War and Peace" & a Top 10 List For Other Light Reading

2007-02-01T13:54:00.000-08:00

In response to Juvenal's question of how War and Peace is treating me, I have modified a general update I had posted elsewhere and will share it below. Let me preface the update by saying that I am not setting a land speed record here. I am only on page 274 out of 1455 in the tiny-print paperback version. But I'm in for the duration. So here goes...

* I'm a bit concerned for Nikolai Rostov after his war injury at such a young age. He is having to grow up quickly, and so far he hasn't handled it all too well. In my humble opinion.

* I'm impressed with Andrei Bolkonsky. He was heroic in battle, but I wonder about his future on the homefront with his pregnant wife, Lisa. He seems a bit hard to live with, and I don't think she's too happy about his dropping her off pregnant with the in-laws on the way to war. She hates his dad, and Andrei is an awful lot like him. I'm not sure how Andrei will be changed by his dangerous encounters with the army of his enemy (and hero), Bonaparte.

* Pierre is fun to watch, sort of like a NASCAR pile-up is fun to watch. To become so wealthy at such a young age is dangerous for anyone, especially for someone as clueless and impetuous as he. And now, out of nowhere, he finds himself married to the most beautiful woman in the story (Ellen). Sounds like a dream come true, but I have this feeling that he might end up on the Maury Povich show somewhere along the way.

* And now there's the whole mess with Prince Vasily's son, Anatol. Now that Vasily's succeeded in getting his daughter in on the Bezukhov fortune by marrying Pierre, he's trying to pawn off his spoiled son on Prince Andrei's naive sister. She is Ms. Religion and Ms. Low Self-Esteem (read: thinks she's ugly, and to Tolstoy, she's fairly observant) all rolled into one, and Anatol hasn't even seen her yet. He's pretty sure she's ugly, though, so I'm kind of afraid to see what happens there. But Marya's dad's wacky-ness just might come in handy here. I don't think he'll put up with any crap from Anatol nor any socialite pretense from Vasily.

* At least things seem to be settled with Pierre's cousins (but not Anna Mikhailovna) after Vasily figured out a way to sort of buy them out.

* Waiting in the wings are all the budding romances from young Boris & Natasha to the little Sonya/Julie competition over Nikolai (and snitty Vera with her vicious comments).

So far, it's an interesting story. A little war here, then a little peace. War, peace, war, peace. I think I'm catching on to the title. I'll update you as things develop.

As on my personal journal-type blog, I noted that in January Time Magazine published an article ranking the Top 10 books of all-time. War and Peace came in third, with Tolstoy garnering the honor of holding both 1st and 3rd place on the list. If you are interested in some light reading, here's the list:

#1: Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy
#2: Madame Bovary by Gustave Flaubert
#3: War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy
#4: Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov
#5: The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
#6: Hamlet by William Shakespeare
#7: The Great Gatsby F. Scott Fitzgerald
#8: In Search of Lost Time by Marcel Proust
#9: The Stories of Anton Chekhov by Anton Chekhov
#10: Middlemarch by George Eliot

Mikey claims #8 makes #3 look like Cliff's Notes. I think Juvenal just finished #10, and both he and Mikey are working on #1.

Anyone else doing any light reading? Or care to comment on the rankings?

The Quarterly Book Report: In Which I Don't Spend Much Time Talking About the Book I'm Talking About -- Which is Michael Lewis's "The Blind Side"

2007-01-30T15:01:00.000-08:00

A couple of disclaimers. I usually don’t like reading books about sports. I have no idea why; I just don’t enjoy them (and I love sports). And for reasons which are probably unfair (although I’ll explain them in a moment), I don’t like it when writers spend their careers writing books which seem formulaic. For example, John Berendt writes books about cities rich in history that have fallen on hard times but still possess a lot of odd characters that end up involved in some sort of dramatic event (see Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil; The City of Falling Angels). Mark Kurlansky writes books about seemingly mundane things (Cod, Salt) and then shows us how these seemingly mundane things did nothing less than change the world. Simon Winchester (The Professor and the Madman, A Crack in the Edge of the World) finds either an eccentric and forgotten person or a catastrophic and forgotten event and tells us how this person or event changed life as we know it.*

I didn’t mean to read Michael Lewis’s latest book, The Blind Side: Evolution of a Game. I didn’t mean to read it for a couple of reasons. It’s a book about how football was revolutionized by a specific position in football, the Left Tackle, a player whose job, if done correctly, no one ever notices. So it was a sports book. And then there was the whole writer-using a-formula thing. This looked like the same book Lewis wrote a couple of years ago about baseball, Moneyball – a book about how one baseball GM used statistics and other such things to rethink how baseball teams spend their money.

My problem with what I’m calling formula books is that it seems like the writers are mailing it in. They write a best-selling book and try to capture that magic again. But what the subsequent books lack is the sense of discovery the first book contained. Berendt’s first book, about Savannah, GA, kept me interested because it seemed as though everything kept surprising Berendt. He didn’t know what he was going to find, so he was continually discovering something he seemingly couldn’t wait to tell readers about. His book on Venice, Italy, however, lacked that same sense of discovery, of I-can’t-wait-to-tell-you-about-this-ness. He seemed to be looking for the same sorts of things he’d seen in Savannah. He didn’t allow himself to be surprised. Kurlansky’s book Cod was an interesting history because it was quirky and as you read the book, you can feel Kurlansky’s excitement as he learns something new about a fish (A FISH!). He can’t wait to tell people about it. But by the time he got to writing about salt? He wasn’t expecting to be surprised by salt.

Etc.

So what I’m saying is – the writers I’ve mentioned can come up with interesting subjects, but what they often fail to do is capture their initial sense of excitement at discovery. The later books read as though the writers sat down with a specific outline, an outline of what worked so well in the first book, and then followed that outline rather than allowing themselves to be surprised by their subject. It’s as though they knew the ending before they began the first page.

So a bit of backstory on Michael Lewis and why I thought The Blind Side would be yet another boring sports / formula book. Lewis’s Moneyball contained three major characters. A statistician, Bill James – a guy who labored away unknown for years crunching away at seemingly useless baseball numbers to try to make sense of the game from a semi-scientific perspective. There was the “baseball maverick” – the GM of the Oakland A’s, Billy Beane, who was trying to come up with a way, statistically, to put the best team on the field for the least amount of money. And then there were a few players I’ll call the third character – players on whom Beane conducted his economical / statistical experiments.

Lewis’s football book seemed like it would do the same thing. There was a nerdy guy who watched thousands of hours of high school football game-tapes in an attempt to rate them for college scouts. There was a "football maverick" – Bill Walsh – who tried to come up with a more efficient way to run an offense. The third character, though.

My guess is that Lewis probably envisioned several players to serve as the third character in this book. But when he ran across the story of Michael Oher, his book was no longer about football. His outline was wadded up and thrown away. He couldn’t wait to tell readers the story of Michael Oher.

The story of Michael Oher really is an incredible one. By the time the nerdy game-tape watching man saw Oher on film, he was a 6’ 5”, 350 lb. junior in high school. No one had ever heard of Michael Oher because, for all practical purposes, he hadn’t existed until he was 15. Up until then, he’d been more or less homeless, fending for himself on the streets of Memphis. The Memphis public school system, which he’d attended off and on, didn’t have records for him. He couldn’t read or write to speak of. He lived in the worst public housing project in Memphis.

Through a chain of fairy-tale-like events, Michael one day finds himself at Briarcrest Christian High School. One out of only you-can-count-‘em-on-both-hands black students at a school that was created as a way to ensure that white students wouldn’t have to learn alongside black students in the ‘60s. No one really knew what to do. He didn’t. Teachers didn’t. Coaches didn’t. Then in steps Sean and Leigh Anne Tuohy. Sean is an announcer for the Memphis Grizzlies and a volunteer coach at Briarcrest. He goes home one day and tells his wife about this HUGE kid he’d seen at school.

Through more fairy-tale-like events, Michael begins to live with the Touhy family (they eventually adopt him).

For the most part, Lewis doesn’t provide critiques of what he sees. He tries to just tell a story. There is some critique, but he leaves most of that up to readers. But this book, with a title that makes a football reference the casual fan might not understand, with a dust jacket displaying the x’s and o’s of a football play, is, dare I say, an important book. But it is not an important book because it describes how a game evolved (I’m guessing that only a third of the book, or less, is actually about football). I think it’s important because it raises questions that we don’t like to ask about race, about drugs, about high school athletics, about meritocracy, about education, about an economic system that is oppressive to certain groups, about people allowing themselves to be victims of this system. It raises these questions about the Heartland of America in 2007. Lewis raises all of these questions through the story of Michael Oher and the Touhy family. All of whom refused to ignore the problems of race, drugs, meritocracy, etc.

This story – the one Lewis can’t wait to tell us – leads him places he probably never wanted to go. It takes him to the heart of the projects in Memphis. It takes him into the foster-care system. It takes him into both the public and private school systems in Memphis. He learns things he didn’t know he wanted to know, but now he can’t wait to tell you about them.

*I’m picking on writers I actually like – these are all good writers, and I’m probably not being fair to them, but whatever.

Blogging the Bible

2007-01-28T10:38:00.000-08:00

Interesting.

Was Jesus Smart?

2007-01-25T17:16:00.000-08:00

Another interesting section of The Divine Conspiracy reads:

"If you play a game of word association today, in almost any setting, you will collect some familiar names around words such as smart, knowledgeable, intelligent, and so forth. Einstein, Bill Gates of Microsoft, and the obligatory rocket scientists, will stand out. But one person who pretty certainly will not come up in this connection is Jesus.

"Here is a profoundly significant fact: In our culture, among Christians and non-Christians alike, Jesus Christ is automatically disassociated from brilliance or intellectual capacity. Not one in a thousand will spontaneously think of him in conjunction with words such as well-informed, brilliant, or smart.

"Far too often he is regarded as hardly conscious. He is looked on as a mere icon, a wraithlike semblance of a man, fit for the role of sacrificial lamb or alienated social critic, perhaps, but little more.

"A well-known 'scholarly' picture has him wandering the hills of Palestine, deeply confused about who he was and even about crucial points in his basic topic, the kingdom of the heavens. From time to time he perhaps utters disconnected though profound and vaguely radical irrelevancies, now obscurely preserved in our Gospels.

"Would you be able to trust your life to such a person? If this is how he seems to you, are you going to be inclined to become his student? Of course not. We all know that action must be based on knowledge, and we grant the right to lead and teach only to those we believe to know what is real and what is best."

[The author of these paragraphs obviously believes otherwise. What do you think?]

And That's Why the Greeks Invented the Q-Tip

2007-01-19T13:05:00.000-08:00

www.newscientist.com

Because deep down, you've always wanted to know.

Great Teachers

2007-01-18T15:23:00.000-08:00

I’ve got the impression from several sources that The Divine Conspiracy by Dallas Willard is the end-all to religious books. And I’m not saying it isn’t. I am saying, from my vantage point half-way through, I’m not convinced.

Nonetheless, there’s a lot of really good stuff I’ve discovered so far, and I’m underlining quite a few things, but the overall thesis he seems to be trying to connect hasn’t grabbed me yet. Then again, I’m an idiot, so what do I know? In the meanwhile, I may throw a provocative thought or two out from this book for your viewing pleasure.

One of the interesting sections dealt with “how” Jesus taught, and as a teacher, I find this to be a most interesting topic. Everyone on this blog has their experiences of good and bad teachers, and I think his thoughts will resonate with everyone:

We must recognize, first of all, that the aim of the popular teacher in Jesus’ time was not to impart information, but to make a significant change in the lives of the hearers. Of course that may require an information transfer, but it is a peculiarly modern notion that the aim of teaching is to bring people to know things that may have no effect at all on their lives… [Today] [t]he teacher must get the information into them. We then “test” the patients to see if they “got it” by checking whether they can reproduce it in language rather than watching how they live. Thus if we today were invited to hear the Sermon on the Mount – or, more likely now, the “Seminar at the Sheraton” – we would show up with notebooks, pens, and tape recorders. We would be astonished to find the disciples “just listening” to Jesus and would look around to see if someone was taping it… Working our way through the crowd to the right-hand man, Peter, we might ask where the conference notebooks and other material were and be further astonished when he only says, “Just listen!” The teacher in Jesus’ time – and especially the religious teacher – taught in such a way that he would impact the life flow of the hearer, leaving a lasting impression without benefit of notes, recorders, or even memorization. Whatever did not make a difference in that way just made no difference. Period… We automatically remember what makes a real difference in our life. The secret of the great teacher is to speak words, to foster experiences, that impact the active flow of the hearer’s life. That is what Jesus did by the way he taught. He tied his teachings to concrete events that make up the hearers’ lives… Now, Jesus not only taught in this manner; he also taught us, his students in the kingdom, to teach in the same way… By showing to others the presence of the kingdom in the concrete details of our shared existence, we impact the lives and hearts of our hearers, not just their heads. And they won’t have to write it down to hold onto it.

#1: Do you agree with Willard’s analysis of a “great” teacher?

#2: Have you ever had a “great” teacher? If so, what seemed to be her or his secrets?

London Calling

2007-01-18T12:11:00.000-08:00

I’ve got a golden opportunity, and I don’t want to blow it. Therefore, I need a little help from my friends.

Today I put down my first payment on a study abroad opportunity in Europe. While I haven’t seen the itinerary, the focus of the trip is a European perspective on broadcast news. We’ll visit the BBC, and SKY, and also venture over to Paris for a peep at Canal Plus. (I believe we’ll only spend a day or two in Paris.)

The profs will arrange the itinerary from May 15 to June 1. And while that will all be enjoyable, I want to take in all I can. Therefore, I plan to arrive a few days early or stay a few days later.

Here’s where the vast knowledge of the Houseflies applies. I’m considering a six-day itinerary. Not sure if I should just see the sights of London or take the rail to Manchester, Edinburgh, or over to Ireland.

As an aside, I don't want to be the typical American tourists taking a glance at some of the world’s most treasured sites just to check them of my list of things to do.

If you’ve been (or are dying to go), what things in Great Britain must be done/seen/tried/experienced?

BONUS:
The person with the most helpful comment might receive a cheap tourist shirt upon my return!

Miss Brooke and the Meaning of Life

2007-01-17T09:45:00.000-08:00

Since we haven't had a book review in a while, ahem, here's a couple I've recently enjoyed.

George Eliot, Middlemarch

Don't think of it as an impossibly long, 19th-century British novel. Think of it as a remarkably short, 19th-century British novel -- given that it's about everything. Virginia Woolf said about Proust's multi-volume In Search of Lost Time that there was nothing left for novelists to write about, as Proust had covered it all. I think Eliot (Mary Ann Evans) accomplished the same thing, and look how much more briefly she did it than Proust did.

It really is a terrific book. You just have to be patient with it at first, while you cross the cultural distance between you and 19th-century England, and adjust to that culture's rhythm and pace.

Nick Lane, Power, Sex, Suicide: Mitochondria and the Meaning of Life

I realize it's probable that I'm not only the only person here who's dorky enough to find a book about mitochondria interesting, but also the only one sufficiently lacking in what's commonly known as "a life" to have the time to read a book about mitochondria, but I'm recommending a book about mitochondria, nonetheless. Mitochondria, it turns out, aren't just the dull little worker-bee organelles you learned about in biology class -- "the powerhouse of the cell." They're at the center of a host of fascinating biological processes, from evolution to cancer to sexual reproduction to aging. The book does get rather technical in places, but not overly so for any of the Houseflies, who, like the residents of Lake Wobegon, are all above average.

So there you have it. My attempt at a book-related Houseflies post. I'm going to stop now, before I violate the genre by making a point.

Embryos For Sale

2007-01-16T14:20:00.000-08:00

I feel superstitious about doing it, but I guess it's time to tell you folks that David and I will welcome a new member of our family in June, assuming all continues to go well -- knock wood, cross myself. And now on to a post about reproduction! (Do I get free rein to talk about this and not foreign policy now that I have a hormonal excuse for not being interested in war?)

So there was this article on Slate that I read today about the Abraham Center of Life, the first human embryo bank in the world. As are most innovations that remove elements of chance from an individual's reproductive life (birth control, IVF, genetic embryo screening, and the like), this one is already controversial. There is of course the specter of human life being bought and sold for profit ... it's interesting that in a capitalist society people have as much of a problem with this as they seem to, since it seems an only logical outcome to me (but then I'm not a big fan of capitalism).

But despite knee-jerk reservations, I have to say that some of the points covered in the Slate article made sense to me. When I was considering what I would do if I could not have biological children, I developed a real aversion to the adoption process for precisely the reasons Ryan discusses. Why should I have to prove myself to someone just because of bad biological luck? The risks of the birth mother backing out and of not knowing what kind of prenatal care the baby was getting were also distasteful to me. And like most other people, I'm selfish -- I wanted an infant who looked somewhat like me, not an older child who had already been mistreated and developed emotional and behavioral problems. (If anyone's going to f**k up my child, it will be me, thank you very much). I know I'm wrong to feel this way and it probably speaks volumes about my lack of character, but there it is.

The embryo donation model using donors that don't know each other makes sense -- neither has a sense of ownership of the embryos, which is the main problem with the Snowflake model of donation of leftover embryos from IVF procedures. It sounds like a great idea in theory, but in truth, most people can't bear to go through with it. As long as neither of the donors are being coerced, I'm not sure I see many problems with it within the context of a capitalist system.

I'm tired and not thinking completely straight right now, so I'm sure others can identify problems with this business that I have overlooked. FWIW, I don't think that the "what if two biologically related children later unknowingly marry each other?" concern is that big a deal given the statistically small likelihood of this occurring (and in any case this possibility has been around as long as sperm donation has existed). More interesting are the educational and racial/ethnic characteristics of the donors. Do we buy the Center's explanation that these simply reflect the demand rather than anything more sinister on their part? And in a more general way, why are we so squeamish about the use of technology to help bring children into the world? It seems to me that children who are wanted this much are more likely to be well cared for and become productive citizens than children conceived by people whose only qualification is fertility. Why should those people get a free pass just because their reproductive systems work when that says nothing about their willingness or ability to take on the responsibilities of parenting?

2007-01-16T00:24:00.000-08:00

''The saints are coming"

Its been a long time since I've been as emotionally invested in a sporting event as much as I am this Sunday's NFC Championship Game.

The Houseflies first video is my new rally cry. (It does give me an Oprah moment every time I watch it.)

But here's the deal. I need a reality check. I could be swept up in my own frustrated Saints fandom. Or am I less crazy than I suspect? Is this team one of the more transcendent sports phenomenon in American history?

I vote yes.

Whether the Saints win or lose I know there will still be plenty of suffering on the Gulf Coast.

But I really enjoy considering how those people, bruised and broken by the storm and the broken system, will feel when our New Orleans Saints win in Chicago.

It may not take away all of their pain. But I hope the team gives them a feeling of satisfaction -- even if it is a bit superficial. If just for a moment, I hope they get to feel victorious.

For all of this I dedicate this space for future discussion of Saints Football and how great it will be to celebrate an NFC (and soon a Super Bowl...) Championship!

A Glimmer in the Middle East

2007-01-12T15:25:00.000-08:00

I don't know how closely everyone is following the bouncing ball of our Middle East policy, but President Bush made some unsettling remarks about Iran (and Syria) in his speech about Iraq, Wednesday night. I was, therefore, happy to have run across this article, which suggests somebody in the administration knows how to apply pressure to other nations without using the military, and is doing so rather effectively.

Aside from that detail, here's a spot for general discussion of the president's new policies on Iraq (and Iran and Syria), and where everybody thinks this train is headed. Do you feel hopeful? Is there another direction you'd prefer? Do you think the Iraqi government can/will deliver on its promises? Should Congress step in, and if so, how? And what are the politics, present and future?

Campaign 2008

2007-01-11T08:23:00.000-08:00

Juvenal’s poetry garnered attention, as did the picture of Saddam’s demise. What could get the Houseflies going again? I’ll try a little presidential politics to see if that works…

We are only 22 months away from the election, so it is time of course to pick your poison. I’ll give you 13 choices (unlucky, of course) on each side:

DEMOCRATS:
* Joseph Biden
* Wesley Clark
* Hillary Rodham Clinton
* Christopher Dodd
* John Edwards
* Al Gore
* Mike Gravel
* John Kerry
* Dennis Kucinich
* Barack Obama
* Bill Richardson
* Al Sharpton
* Tom Vilsack

REPUBLICANS:
* Sam Brownback
* John Cox
* James Gilmore
* Newt Gingrich
* Rudy Giuliani
* Chuck Hagel
* Mike Huckabee
* Duncan Hunter
* John McCain
* George Pataki
* Mitt Romney
* Tom Tancredo
* Tommy Thompson

Let the comment board go where she wishes…

* Maybe a few guesses at who will win each side (& the overall winner)

* Maybe a few guesses at who SHOULD win each side (& overall)

* Maybe a few fun ideas of who it would be fun to see debate each other

What do you think?

A Funny Feeling in America

2007-01-04T14:24:00.000-08:00

I’m interested in hearing some opinions on the execution of Saddam Hussein.

When you think of the 3,000+ American men and women that have lost their lives in this conflict and add to that number the estimated 50,000 or so Iraqis that have died as well, who could think of a more deserving casualty of war than Saddam Hussein?

Yet for some reason, when it all went down, there didn’t seem to be much rejoicing in the streets of the United States of America.

And I’m interested in learning why?

I’m not a fan of capital punishment in the first place, so the weird feeling I sensed when I heard of the execution wasn’t so strange. What was strange was the sense that this weird feeling wasn't contained to me. It seemed like America felt funny about it, too.

President Bush called the execution “a major milestone,” but the leader of the U.S.-led coalition forces in Iraq struck the dissonant chord in all this when he stated for the record that “we would have handled things differently.”

What feels so wrong about something that theoretically should have felt so right?

Free Speech Addendum

2006-12-23T13:02:00.000-08:00

Just a quickie. I mentioned Flynt Leverett in the discussion of unicorn's free speech post, the other day. The New York Times decided yesterday to go ahead and run Leverett's editorial, with the bits the White House objected to blacked out. It's kind of interesting to sort of read.

2006-12-22T12:34:00.000-08:00

Posted on Whitney's behalf:

Because I'm not a "real" contributor to DH, I was hoping to start a conversation on a link I just saw on MSNBC about disabled couples who are trying to genetically engineer (?) their babies to have their same disability.

I don't know how to link to articles, or I would. (But Joe knows: Linky.)

Basically, what caught my eye the most was a couple, both of whom have dwarfism, who are pushing for this type of embryonic manipulation.

This particular quote seemed, um, ironic...to me: Gibson and Cara Reynolds of Collingswood, N.J., are outraged by opposition to using embryo screening to allow dwarf people to have dwarf children. “You cannot tell me that I cannot have a child who’s going to look like me,” Cara Reynolds said. “It’s just unbelievably presumptuous and they’re playing God.”

Isn't that exactly what she is wanting to do? Play God?

If someone is willing to post a whole new topic, that would be great. Maybe no one is interested. That's OK, too. :)

Merry Merry Merry Christmas to you all. New and old friends alike. I pray for you all peace and happiness.

Whit-

And Your Little Dog, Too

2006-12-21T13:59:00.000-08:00

This year, one congressman is sending out a very special Christmas greeting to one of his new colleagues. Something to the effect of:

At this joyous time of year,
my heartfelt wish for Christmas cheer.
To you from Jesus, and I quote,
'Get bent, sand nigger! I hate you folks!'

I need a drink.

Atonement

2006-12-20T15:40:00.000-08:00

Now that it appears the discussion of Sandi's excellent post has died down, I'm posting a link to a post by a blogger-pal of Al's, which Al sent me from his plague-infested deathbed earlier today. (Funeral arrangements will be announced when available. In lieu of flowers, the family asks that you make donations to the Juvenal Urbino Advancement Fund, because a juvenal is a terrible thing to waste. Queue video of Native American with tear running down one cheek.)

It's a brief discussion of the Christian doctrine of atonement -- of how we should think of what Jesus did, exactly. There's the view pretty much everybody in Western Christendom holds (the sacrificial view, technically known as "penal substitutionary atonement"), but that's not the only possible view. In fact, it's not the dominant view in Eastern Christendom. The biblical materials themselves sometimes seem to reflect one view of atonement, sometimes another.

Anyway, read the post and discuss away!

The Challenges of Poverty

2006-12-19T10:24:00.000-08:00

Salon has posted a couple of articles recently that might surprise you. They surprised me. And being the good little bleeding heart that I am, I don't know how to think about or respond to them. I thought I would ask you all for your thoughts.

The most recent of the two is by Debra Dickerson, an African American writer who grew up in the inner city and managed to escape poverty and attend Harvard. Honestly, I don't think she's a very good writer, but she always writes on topics that interest me so I end up reading her stuff anyway. Some readers feel that she's too hard on her people, so to speak. Anyway, the article is about some Katrina evacuees who were placed in the house next door to hers for a little over a year. It's a parade of horribles at the center of which is a vacuous, slack-jawed mother and the seven kids she doesn't bother to parent and four absent fathers (who aren't mentioned in the story, but I thought I'd mention them here). I read the story with shock and horror, trying to imagine what I would do if I was in Dickerson's situation.

The other article was written by a heartbroken mother who adopted a nine-year-old boy from poverty, gave him a solid middle-class life with all the opportunities that entails, and for her efforts has had to watch him throw his life away without meaningful employment, siring children with a woman just as unmotivated as he is, and is now wondering what her role should be in his life and the lives of her grandchildren.

Now, not that I have to say this with this crowd, but this is decidedly not about race. I have some trailer-dwelling relatives of relatives in backwoods Mississippi that could probably put some of the folks in these stories to shame. But I thought I'd stick in the disclaimer since the main characters in these two particular stories are people of color. Nor is completely about class -- we have all known people of limited means who are clean, courteous, and responsible.

But the fact remains that what's described in these stories is what is so challenging about poverty. That there are people who perhaps can't be helped, that it can be too late to make changes. It makes you understand, for a split second, why conservatives have such a negative view of human nature, why they think the poor are scum who deserve their lot. It's a helpless feeling to read about this, and recognize the tendencies being described, and to have no understanding at all of that level of dysfunction. And to see myself, as I prepare to have my own family, sneer at and disapprove of (internally, of course) those I see every day who don't "deserve" to have children, who can't do as good a job as I can and therefore should be somehow prevented from reproducing. This level of judgment disturbs me, but at the same time everything I read supports the view that children of people like me are better off in every conceivable way, while those of others languish in squalor with poor nutrition and parental neglect. It seems criminal, sometimes. Is there anything to be done about it, or is it the price of living in a democracy? (I was going to link to a NY Times Magazine article from a few weeks ago that was about schools that help disadvantaged kids succeed, but it's too old and is now in the archives -- anyway, it was interesting because it concluded that disparities start very early and cascade over time, and have much to do with parenting styles and parents' vocabularies).

The scene that stood out to me in the Dickerson article was when the youngest two children demanded to be mothered, begging with their eyes for her to put sunscreen on them. It reminded me what a goddamn shame it is that so many kids never have a chance because of their crappy parents (who were once the children of crappy parents themselves, most likely), and made me wonder when exactly is the point at which those children become the adults of which I (internally) disapprove. And if is there any way for society to intervene.

It is taboo to say these things, especially for someone whose values are what mine are. And I know that to notice the dynamics that the writers above discuss in their essays does not inexorably lead to the conclusion that everyone gets what they deserve and all of the policy preferences that go along with that. The question is, though, where do these observations lead for people whose first impulse is to have compassion? How can we sit idly by and let the cycle continue? The charter schools described in the NY Times Magazine article seem like a good place to start, but as the writer of that article pointed out, the kids whose parents sign them up for a charter school with a rigorous program are already way ahead of the game. What do we do about parents like "Mary Smith" in the Dickerson essay except try to keep them and their children far away from us?

A Gag on Free Speech

2006-12-18T10:56:00.000-08:00

This could be called "crying wolf", but I think not. It is a pattern of abuse practiced by this administration. What think you?

N Y TIMES Editorial
A Gag on Free Speech
Published: December 15, 2006
The Bush administration is trampling on the First Amendment and well-established criminal law by trying to use a subpoena to force the American Civil Liberties Union to hand over a classified document in its possession. The dispute is shrouded in secrecy, and very little has been made public about the document, but we do not need to know what’s in it to know what’s at stake: if the government prevails, it will have engaged in prior restraint — almost always a serious infringement on free speech — and it could start using subpoenas to block reporting on matters of vital public concern.
Justice Department lawyers have issued a grand jury subpoena to the A.C.L.U. demanding that it hand over “any and all copies” of the three-and-a-half-page government document, which was recently leaked to the group. The A.C.L.U. is asking a Federal District Court judge in Manhattan to quash the subpoena.
There are at least two serious problems with the government’s action. It goes far beyond what the law recognizes as the legitimate purpose of a subpoena. Subpoenas are supposed to assist an investigation, but the government does not need access to the A.C.L.U.’s document for an investigation since it already has its own copy. It is instead trying to confiscate every available copy of the document to keep its contents secret. The A.C.L.U. says it knows of no other case in which a grand jury subpoena has been used this way.
The subpoena is also a prior restraint because the government is trying to stop the A.C.L.U. in advance from speaking about the document’s contents. The Supreme Court has held that prior restraints are almost always unconstitutional. The danger is too great that the government will overreach and use them to ban protected speech or interfere with free expression by forcing the media, and other speakers, to wait for their words to be cleared in advance. The correct way to deal with speech is to evaluate its legality after it has occurred.
The Supreme Court affirmed these vital principles in the Pentagon Papers case, when it rejected the Nixon administration’s attempts to stop The Times and The Washington Post from publishing government documents that reflected badly on its prosecution of the Vietnam War. If the Nixon administration had been able to use the technique that the Bush administration is trying now, it could have blocked publication simply by ordering the newspapers to hand over every copy they had of the papers.
If the A.C.L.U.’s description of its secret document is correct, there is no legitimate national defense issue. The document does not contain anything like intelligence sources or troop movements, the group says. It is merely a general statement of policy whose release “might perhaps be mildly embarrassing to the government.” Given this administration’s abysmal record on these issues, this case could set a disturbing and dangerous precedent. If the subpoena is enforced, the administration will have gained a powerful new tool for rolling back free-speech rights — one that could be used to deprive Americans of information they need to make informed judgments about their elected leaders’ policies and actions.

Diana Worship

2006-12-14T07:11:00.000-08:00

I noticed in the news this morning that Princess Diana’s death has officially been ruled an accident. So, after nine-plus years of breathless anticipation, we may now return to our regularly scheduled lives.

Seriously, seeing her name in the headlines again reminded me of a section of The Unnecessary Pastor that I read recently. In it, Eugene Peterson shares his observations on Princess Di.

I’ll share it with you now, but I’m most interested in your thoughts in response:

DIANA OF EPHESUS AND OF NOW

At the end of August 1997 and for weeks following, the attention of the whole world, quite literally the whole world, was captured by the death of Princess Diana. I was in Ireland and Scotland at the time and got the entire drama served up to me blow by blow. I must confess that I knew next to nothing about Diana at the time, can’t ever remember seeing a picture of her, and I knew nothing of her trials with the royal family. But in three weeks, I got a crash course in Diana religion – for the thing that struck me most forcibly was that it was a course in religion. This was totally a religious event. There were political implications and family dynamics, but mostly, overwhelmingly, it was religious. Diana was treated with the veneration and adoration of a goddess. At her death, the world fell down and worshiped.

As I observed all of this, and reflected on it in conversation with friends, I realized that Diana was the perfect goddess for a world religion that didn’t want anything to do with the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, but was desperate to worship someone or something that would provide a sense of beauty and transcendence to their lives. It turned out that Princess Diana was absolutely perfect for the role. This supposedly godless world of ours is not godless at all – the capacity for worship is as strong as in any religious fundamentalist camp meeting. At her death, the world worshiped her.

At first, I noticed the parallels to the ancient Canaanite sex/fertility goddess Astarte and Asherah. She was a perfect fit for the role: that fragile beauty, tinged with sadness; that poignant innocence, with suggestive hints and guesses of slightly corrupt sexuality in the shadows. Her popular identification with the poor and oppressed, her photo with Mother Teresa of Calcutta, her compassion for people with AIDS, her campaign against the land mines that had destroyed the bodies of so many children, and her own victimization by the heartless royal family and rejection by her husband. She summed up the spiritual aspirations of a sexually indulgent culture that was at the same time filled with misunderstanding and loss and hurt and rejection.

Every day for a week in Edinburgh I watched long lines of men and women and children carrying bouquets of flowers, placing them on appointed shrines throughout the city – silent and weeping, unutterably moved by the death of their goddess. All week long, I read the meditations, religious meditations, on Diana in the daily newspapers. And then one day, I remembered that the Roman name for Artemis was Diana, Diana of the Ephesians. Now, Diana the sex goddess, who provided the mythology and set the moral tone of the city, was back – the fertility goddess of the ancient world taking over the imaginations of the modern world.

I’m not suggesting that the Diana cult of Ephesus and the Diana cult that we all witnessed since September 1997 have the same content, but the effect is the same. The Ephesian Diana cult was a pastiche of stories and superstitions and systems of thought endemic to the ancient east that served the religious needs of the city. (Much of it is accountable in general under what we in broad terms label gnosticism.) The recent Diana cult is also a pastiche of stories and longings and public relations that serve the religious needs of an astounding number of people who are nominally Christians and Jews, Buddhists and Muslims. Her death brought out into the open just how worldwide her influence extended, the untold millions who worshiped at the shrine of Diana.

Diana evoked the best in people – but it is the best of what they want for themselves, not of what God wants. She offered “good” without morality and transcendence without any God but herself. Diana epitomizes our world religion of today…

Diana/Artemis worship is in the air: it is on television, in the magazines, in church pulpits, and in school classrooms; it dominates business marketing, the entertainment industry, recreational addictions, and political arenas. Leaders acquire a following by evoking longings in us that are unfulfilled, and then either explicitly claiming or implicitly suggesting that their program or automobile or lifestyle or church can make us complete. Diana religion. Diana worship.

Strange Bedfellows

2006-12-08T10:00:00.000-08:00

I see that Rush Limbaugh has started calling for America to treat the Iraq War like World War II. Why do I suddenly feel so . . . dirty?

Actually, Limbaugh's position and mine are quite different. Rush is laboring under the illusion that if we treat this like WWII, we can still win. As I've said, I don't think victory (in any very meaningful sense) is possible. I think we should treat this like WWII simply to demonstrate to our enemies that we're still capable of that kind of commitment. (And to bring home to the voters what it means to go to war.) My argument is: do that long enough to prove our mettle, then get the heck out.

Also, Limbaugh seems to have seized on the WWII argument simply as an excuse to fulminate; as a weapon for bashing the Iraq Study Group because they put a crimp in the dream world he lives in. I have my doubts about their recommendations, but I don't think they're cowards, defeatists, or "surrender monkeys," as the New York Post labeled them. Unlike Limbaugh, they are at least realists.

Q: How far out in right field do you have to be in order to consider Alan Simpson too soft, and Ed Meese too liberal?

The Un-Hitch

2006-12-07T14:40:00.000-08:00

Will Smith as Hitch was adept at endearing himself to the chicas. Alfred Hitchcock as Hitch preferred blondes. Christopher Hitchens as Hitch prefers . . . the company of men, I suppose. But then, as the great Homer Simpson once said, who doesn't?

Hitchens does have a point, though. I mean, really, when was the last time Queen Elizabeth said something funny? Genuinely funny. You know, funny enough to make men in bars elbow each other and say, "She's hot."

Baby Steps

2006-12-06T16:17:00.000-08:00

Rick Warren's Saddleback Church recently held a conference on AIDS. Among the invited speakers were Senators Sam Brownback and Barack Obama. Brownback's name was familiar and unremarkable. Obama's, however, raised the hackles of some Religious Right groups, who told Warren it was wrong -- that is, immoral -- for Christians to work cooperatively on any issue with anyone who supported abortion rights.

In other words, "He that biddeth him God speed is a partaker of his evil deeds."

Take a biiiiiig whiff of that one and let it out slowly. Ahhhhhhhhh. Smells like home.

Anyway, Obama offered to bow out, saying he didn't want his presence to obscure the purpose of the conference. Much to Warren's credit, however, he told the hackled (behackled? hackle-risen? hackle-berisen? hisle-beracken?) groups to buzz off. AIDS was too big a problem, he said, to turn down help from others who wanted to save lives.

It's progress.

Mike Cope Sings the Classics

2006-12-03T05:32:00.000-08:00

For the Church of Christ folks among us...

TV Land

2006-11-30T13:54:00.000-08:00

After enduring recent discussions on such childish topics as religion and politics, it is finally time to move on to a more substantial topic: television.

TV Land has released its list of the Top 100 Quotes & Catch Phrases in television history in anticipation of its five-day countdown special beginning December 11. If you want to take a gander at the entire list, you can go HERE today. But to save you the trouble, I’ve taken the time to narrow down the list to my personal Top Ten for your fun-filled derision.

My personal theory in ranking these “Quotes and Catch Phrases” is popular endurance. In other words, these are the phrases made famous by television that I believe the proverbial “person on the street” will still be saying long after TV Land has filed bankruptcy.

Here they are:

#10: “Tastes Great! Less Filling!” (Miller Lite advertisement)

#9: “I’m Not a Crook…” (Richard Nixon)

#8: “One Small Step For Man, One Giant Leap For Mankind” (Neil Armstrong)

#7: “Holy (whatever), Batman!” (Robin)

#6: “The Thrill of Victory, the Agony of Defeat” (Wide World of Sports)

#5: “Come On Down!” (Johnny Olson from “The Price Is Right”)

#4: “Smile! You’re on Candid Camera!” (Candid Camera)

#3: “Ask Not What Your Country Can Do For You…” (John F. Kennedy)

#2: “Is That Your Final Answer?” (Regis Philbin, “Who Wants To Be a Millionaire?”)

#1: “Two Thumbs Up!” (Siskel & Ebert)

Improvising the Missing Act

2006-11-24T07:57:00.000-08:00

I’ve recently finished reading The Unnecessary Pastor, by Marva Dawn & Eugene Peterson. The book, in fact, consists of lectures at a conference at Regent College, where Dawn & Peterson were the keynote speakers.

It wasn’t my favorite book of all-time, but there were some really interesting parts. I thought over the next several weeks I’d offer some of those parts for your consideration and/or discussion.

This one is from Dawn:

IMPROVISING THE MISSING ACT

“N.T. Wright offers an especially helpful analogy for dealing with the question of how we apply the biblical texts to our lives. Frequently, the ultra-conservatives take texts and slap them on the present situation without any concern for the original or current cultures and how the differences between them might affect how we apply the Scriptures at least two thousand years after they were written. Extreme liberals, on the other hand, often react by insisting that the Bible has nothing specific to say directly to this culture, that we can only abstract some sort of ethereal principles out of the text. As a creative and yet faithful alternative beyond both sides, Tom Wright suggests a brilliant comparison.

“Suppose we found an incomplete play by William Shakespeare. How could we produce it? If we discovered the first five acts and the last bit of the seventh, we could try to write the missing parts – but who could ever write as well as Shakespeare? Besides, Shakespeare is no longer alive for us to check out our attempts with him.

“Instead, we could go to Ashland, Oregon, which has one of the finest Shakespeare festivals in the world, and there we would secure the best Shakespearean actors we could find – people who have performed lots of his plays, who know his ways, his idiosyncrasies, his twists of language. They would immerse themselves in the acts that we do have, and then we’d let them improvise the parts that are missing. Since the audience would be different every time the play was performed, it would be improvised differently every day according to who is there and what is happening. Wouldn’t that be wonderful?

“Similarly, the Christian community has passed on the unfinished drama of God. Act I of the play, the creation, teaches us that we are all created equally to bear the image of God, that we are responsible to care for each other and the cosmos. Act II, the fall, enables us to understand the world’s brokenness and destruction. Act III and V present the stories of Israel and of the early Christians, respectively, to offer us examples of both disobedience and trust and to demonstrate the consequences of our rebellions and our following. Act IV gives an account of the life, suffering, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus as the culmination of all God’s promises to Israel in Act III and the foundation for all the Holy Spirit’s work through the saints of Act V. Those five acts are complete, but Act VI is missing, and we have only a fragment of the drama’s end (Act VII) from the book of Revelation. What we know of the grand denouement of the world, when Christ comes again and destroys evil and death forever, is only a sketch meant to encourage us in the struggles and sufferings of the present.

“How do we apply the Scriptures? We immerse ourselves in the first five and partial last acts of the drama, in all the texts passed on as the grand biblical story of God and his people. By means of the commandments, speeches, narratives, poetry, warnings, promises, and songs of the entire Revelation, we are formed with the character of God’s people to imitate the virtues and deeds of God himself. All over the world Christians are improvising the biblical story – differently in each place because of the surrounding audience and circumstances…

“We need a lifelong immersion in the texts of the Scriptures – soaking ourselves in the language so that when we put down our Bibles we can improvise living our that language in whatever we encounter.”

Draft

2006-11-20T12:07:00.000-08:00

Thomas Ricks has an interesting online article about the Pentagon's likely recommendations for how to move forward in Iraq.

Our 3 basic options, as the generals see it, are: go big, go long, or go home. Going big means sending an additional 20-30,000 troops. Going long means reducing our overall force size while sending more advisors to help train Iraqi troops and police, and staying for another 5-10 years. Going home means just what it sounds like.

They dismiss the 3rd option because it would lead to total civil war in Iraq. As you may have heard over the weekend, Gen. Abizaid favors the 2nd -- going long. What the Pentagon favors is a hybrid of #1 and #2: send an additional 20-30,000 troops for a short time, while transitioning to a smaller, longer term force composed of more advisors.

Frankly, I don't see how that would work. The problem, as best I can tell, with the Iraqi forces isn't that they lack the ability to fight; it's that they lack the will to fight. That is, the lack the will to fight for Iraq. They'll fight to defend their own region or sect or ethnic group, but if they're sent to fight for some other region or sect or ethnic group, they literally walk away. They quit and go home. (And take the guns we paid for with them.) I fail to see how sending more American military advisors is going to fix that. All we're doing is arming and training people for the sectarian militias.

As Ricks notes, the Pentagon came up with the 20-30k number in their "go big" option because they realized they simply didn't have the several hundred thousand more troops needed to actually conduct a counter-insurgency war. Even to get that smaller number, they're going to have to extend tours and call up more reservists and National Guard.

Which is why, in my opinion, we should institute a draft. I mean, how is this not a draft situation?

We're at war.

It's a two-front war -- Iraq and Afghanistan -- that in 4 months will have lasted as long as America's involvement in World War II.

We can't afford to lose in either place.

For several months, we've been losing in both places.

We flat don't have enough troops to change that.

It seems to me the rubber has met the road. Either we give up, or we make this a truly American war. So far, this has been a war the military has fought, but America hasn't. America isn't at war; the military is. America's non-military families have not had to contribute a single thing to the war effort. We aren't even picking up the tab (unless you count putting it on the national credit card for later generations to pay off). I worry about the future of a democracy when a majority of the populace slips into thinking "going to war" means "sending to war." It makes us careless and sloppy about how and when we decide to declare war. If the history of this adventure in Iraq is any guide, we're already much too cavalier. It's time to make this thing real, and fight it for real.

World War II is the last substantial war America won. If we want to take anything resembling victory from this one, maybe we should learn something from what we did in WWII: go hugely big, get the whole nation involved, make our point, then go home. We need to draft and train that several hundred thousand soldiers the Pentagon knows it needs to really fight a counter-insurgency, and go fight it.

Hodgepodge

2006-11-17T07:11:00.000-08:00

POLITICS: The rest of the Houseflies are admirably addressing this area, so I’ll just tip my hat to their thought-provoking posts and comments…

POLITICS + RELIGION: Most of you will stay away because we’ve fought this fight many times before, but I’ve enmeshed myself in another discussion of Christianity as it relates to war/pacifism over at my friend, Danny Dodd’s, blog. But feel free to come on over if you wish.

BOOKS: I’m still working on two, which is my normal practice. I’m just two chapters away from finishing my book for work, The Unnecessary Pastor (by Marva Dawn & Eugene Peterson). I’ll probably post a few thoughts from it when I’m done. Even though it might be my least favorite book by Peterson, there are still several good thoughts interspersed. And on my fun book front, Lemony Snicket’s book #7, The Vile Village, is sitting on my nightstand at home. I haven’t started it yet, but I will. I think all of you should read a Lemony Snicket book. Seriously!

SPORTS: I’m all about the Razorbacks this year. Number five in AP, but number seven in the BCS. There is no way Notre Dame should be ahead of Arkansas, but I was still surprised to see the AP bump us ahead of them. For some reason, sports folks love Notre Dame. Rutgers has me worried. Arkansas really needs West Virginia to take them down. Here’s my plan:
* Cal (or UCLA) over USC
* USC over Notre Dame
* WVU over Rutgers
* Ohio State beats Michigan by 40 points (or vice-versa)
* Arkansas beats MSU, LSU, and Florida

Okay, a bit far-fetched, but it could happen…

RELIGION: This emerging movement still has me thinking. I brought it up to a couple of Episcopal pastors yesterday, but they immediately gravitated to the worship service end of it. Which is the one part that doesn’t interest me. I’m much more captivated by the “how you live is more important than what you believe” aspect of it.

I started thinking, if you asked folks who best epitomized the life of Jesus…
* Roman Catholics would say the Pope (I’m guessing)
* Evangelicals would say Billy Graham (look at all those people he converted)
* I don’t know who Mainline Protestants would say (I’ll have to ask)
* Emerging folks would probably say Mother Teresa.

Evangelicals would then point out that Mother Teresa was Catholic, to which emerging folks would say, “I don’t care if she’s a chicken, she lived more like Jesus than anyone I’ve seen.” 1st John says, “Whoever claims to live in Him must walk as Jesus did.”

Quit bugging me, Mikey. I have no point. Just thinking out loud…

SEE YA: I’m on the road today through late tomorrow night. I hope to check in late tonight, but otherwise, just thought I’d throw some random thoughts out for fun.

Yours,
Al

Farmers Branch: I wish I never knew you

2006-11-16T11:52:00.000-08:00

Forgive me for barging in to the Houseflies domain after going so long with nothing useful to contribute. But I finally have something to talk about.

Larry James contributed to our blog some time ago. For those that don’t remember, James serves as the President/CEO for Central Dallas Ministries, “a human community development corporation with a focus on economic and social justice at work in inner city Dallas.”

On his blog today, he put forth a great articulation of my hunch that most Americans are ignorantly nodding their heads in agreement with bigotry, and I’m sick of it.

I’m sick of the pundis that portray “illegals” as greedy, criminals that weasel their way in to our country taking jobs from deserving Americans.

I was repulsed to see the portrayals of immigration in the Pennsylvania Senate race. Does Pennsylvania really have an imminent threat of border jumpers? Take a look at the tone from the front lines of the issue in places like California (this link is well worth the read!) and Arizona. The term “illegals” is almost universally replaced by the moniker “migrants.” In a previous post James questioned, “How can a human being be illegal?”

Enter Farmers Branch, Texas. Growing up I considered Farmers Branch Church of Christ my surrogate church. They hosted a youth leadership conference I attended from 8th grade until my college years.

In James’ post he discusses FB’s new attempt to crack down on these illegals. I find it noisome, this legislation led by FBCoC member, Tim O’Hare.

Where is the compassion? Where is the concern for humanity?

I don’t profess to be the most informed person on the history and origins of our border issues, but I know racism when I see it.

James makes excellent points about the notion that migrants take from “hard working Americans.” Even though, as Larry points out, they pay sales tax, contribute to property tax. If employed, they contribute to social security with no expectation of return.

When it comes to the security concerns of our porous border, our elected officials certainly have a difficult problem on their hands. However, they ran for office to deal with the tough problems facing our country.

When they resort to preying on American jingoism and xenophobia, I don’t know whether to fight, cry or puke.

New Leadership

2006-11-16T11:32:00.000-08:00

This topic seemed newsworthy enough to move it from the comments section to an actual post. In voting today, John Murtha lost his bid to become the Democrats' Majority Leader, 149-86. As the president might say, it was a thumpin'. Nancy Pelosi, who was supporting Murtha, won the Speaker's chair unanimously. It sounds like the caucus asserted itself and said, "Nancy, we love you as Speaker, but you're wrong about Murtha. We can't say we're going to set new standards for honesty and ethics, then turn right around and elect someone with Murtha's problems."

Earlier in the week, the senatorial GOP chose Trent Lott as their second-in-command, despite his endorsement of the 1948 Dixiecrat platform only a few years ago. Based on reports I heard this morning, the general sentiment among GOP senators seemed to be that Lott had been punished enough for that. In other words, the punishment they had inflicted was for being impolitic in expressing his racism, not for being a racist. Apparently, it's still okay to be a racist, as long as you show a little politesse about it. The South's swaggering style is too gauche for a senate leader; the North's haughty style, however, is fine.

Whistling Past Dixie?

2006-11-15T06:55:00.000-08:00

So the new topic of hot conversation among some Democrats these days is what this election means -- and specifically, one theme that has arisen again and again is the question of what role the South plays in politics vis a vis other regions. The message some gleaned from last Tuesday's election is that the West and Midwest have rejected the far-right agenda of the Republican party, and that indeed the South is the only region that embraces this agenda in large/majority numbers.

Tied in to that is the idea that Howard Dean's 50-state strategy was either vindicated or proven folly by this election. But with the West and Midwest in play, the states some Democrats think should be excluded from our efforts are the Southern states. Thomas Schaller, a political scientist at the University of Maryland, forcefully advocates that we should forget the South, that it's beyond hope, and concentrate our time and money on states we have a chance of winning. This generated a firestorm of debate on the letters board, with the vast majority of people who wrote in disagreeing with Schaller and supporting the 50-state strategy.

As you may know, I have a troubled relationship with the South. I don't understand the embarrassingly large chip that so many Southerners have on their shoulder. I find the (white) people there largely insecure and unpleasant. The whole Civil War thing mystifies me -- you can't get over something that happened 150 years ago (and in which, by the way, you're still in the wrong)? The churchiness and sanctimony about religion are obnoxious. The racism is palpable and disgusting (and yes, having lived in both places, it is worse in the South than in the Northeast, contrary to the party line among defensive Southerners). And as much as Southerners will try to defend their homeland (I don't anymore), the stereotypes exist for a reason: with respect to a large majority of the white population, they are true. I have never seen another place where people cling with such ferocity to notions that have been disgraced by, like, basically everyone else. I would be embarrassed for them if they weren't just so hateful that it isn't worth the effort.

People aren't monolithically like this, of course. There are tons of sane people living in the South, and they find their neighbors just as strange as I do. The key is that the people who are not sane are very loud, visible, and memorable. And there are a lot of them. You know what I'm talking about -- they still use the N-word, they hold and espouse egregious stereotypes about Jews, Muslims and anyone else they know nothing about, and they are dittoheads, whether they listen to Rush Limbaugh or not. I.e., never had an independent or critical thought, just parrot whatever the current angry white man grievance is. Their numbers and volume just give the whole region a regressive feel that stifles opposition and debate. So, yes, I kind of despise the South.

Still yet, I count myself among the many who disagree with Schaller about writing the South off. Maybe it's my optimism that there are well-meaning hearts and minds that can turn away from the dark side if educated. Or, maybe it's just the fact that demographic trends indicate some openings for my people. The Latino population is growing exponentially in many areas. The Southern population, particularly in urban areas, is not nearly as homogeneous as it once was. Things are changing slowly but surely. Too slowly for my taste in terms of subjecting myself to it day in and day out, mind you, but changing nonetheless. Moreover, as several letter writers pointed out on Salon, the divide is as much urban versus rural as it is South versus everywhere else. Rural voters in Pennsylvania voted for Rick Santorum by a wide margin, for example. So there's something to that. I think that means we need to reach out to less populated areas, as Claire McCaskill did in Missouri.

The other thing the Democrats need to do (in addition to redefining themselves as a party, of course) is to engage in some long-term thinking and start putting in place an infrastructure as the Republicans did starting in the late 60s and 70s. The Republican ascendancy didn't happen overnight, and Democrats won't start winning Southern states quickly either. But permanently excluding a changing region from a party's vision is a sure way to alienate people who might otherwise be inclined to vote for them one day. As Howard Dean says, you show people respect by asking for their vote. And because I firmly believe that you have to give respect to get respect, that's exactly what we should do.

Weasel Words

2006-11-13T15:34:00.000-08:00

It's always interesting -- and frequently infuriating -- to pay close attention to the language politicians and their proxies use. This is Ken Mehlman's response to a question about what the GOP needs to do to get back into the American voter's good graces:

We have to recommit ourselves to being the party of reform. We have to push things like earmarks. We have to focus aggressively to reduce spending in Washington. Tax reform is another one. Immigration reform.

People put us into power for different reasons than Democrats. They put us in power to reform things. If all we're doing is managing the bureaucracy and not reforming it, we are not living up to the most important thing we stand for.

Message two is we have to try as hard as we can to work in a bipartisan way, where we can, consistent with our principles, and we have to make sure our tone is always a respectful tone. Washington is polarized. Americans have disagreements on issues. But Washington has personal disagreements on issues. Outside the Beltway, people who are in a different party don't look at each other differently. Just because someone disagrees with you is no reason to call them names.

The third message is to say that people who are in public service ought to be about serving the public not aggrandizement for themselves, and certainly not for personal enrichment.

It's really an extraordinary performance. A prime example of how Mehlman rose to become the head of one of our two major parties. People like Mehlman, whatever their party, aren't paid to be consistent, principled, honest, or even sensible. They're paid to win. If that means saying tomorrow the exact opposite of what they said today, and insisting that such has always been their position and anyone who says otherwise is low born and high smelling, that is what they do -- and with a perfectly straight face.

Both sides do it constantly, of course, but I thought this was an especially swell example of packing more b.s. onto the same sized shovel. What's more, if the GOP takes it to heart, it won't win. Let's break it down a bit, shall we?

His opening paragraph attempts to define the GOP by its classic campaign issues: smaller government, less spending, lower taxes, and generally more common-sense lawmaking. He says them as if the last 12 years hadn't happened.

We have to push things like earmarks.

I should think the GOP has pushed earmarks quite far enough. As I read recently, Pres. Reagan once vetoed a transportation bill because it had the extraordinary number of 152 earmarks in it. The last transportation bill Pres. Bush signed had over 6,000.

We have to focus aggressively to reduce spending in Washington.

See above. See also: debt, national.

Immigration reform.

Meaning what, exactly? As Mehlman's party should have learned, when you're actually governing (not just critiquing the other guy's efforts to govern), you don't get to just be for "immigration reform." The GOP couldn't have been any more for "immigration reform" than it's been for the past several years. The problem is, they couldn't come to any agreement on what "immigration reform" means, and therefore they accomplished nothing on the issue. The GOP doesn't need to come out for immigration reform; it needs to figure out what kind of immigration reform it wants.

Do Democrats have the same problem? Yup. And probably on more issues than the GOP. That's historically been the case, at least. Yet the Dems managed to govern the Congress for nearly the entire post-WWII era. How? It's called compromise, both internally and with the minority party. The congressional GOP has not brooked much compromise over the past 12 years, and certainly not with the minority party. (Recall that one of the first things they did was change the House rules to radically reduce the input and influence of the minority, and they consolidated the majority's power in the offices of the leadership to reduce even intraparty compromise.) That's what bit them on immigration reform, even though they owned both houses of Congress and the White House, and all of them were "for" it: they wouldn't compromise with each other on how to do it. As a result, nothing got done. That's what happens when you try to govern using the same methods and principles you used when you were the loyal opposition.

What the GOP needs, if they want get back in good graces with the American voter, is not to come out for "immigration reform." What it needs is to learn how to function as a governing majority.

People put us into power for different reasons than Democrats. They put us in power to reform things.

No, actually, they don't. People elect Republicans for exactly the same reasons they elect Democrats: because there's something they want done. When people want things reformed, they vote for the party that's currently out of power, whichever party that is. If the GOP goes forward with the self-righteous mindset revealed in this particular Mehlman remark, its next attempt at governing will be as disastrous as this one was.

Washington is polarized. Americans have disagreements on issues. But Washington has personal disagreements on issues.

Ah, the passive voice. Anytime you hear a politician slip into the passive voice, check your wallet. (President Bush is a frequent offender, especially on Iraq. The Dems are currently commiting the opposite offense -- using the active-sounding word "redeployment" in place of the more accurate but passive-sounding "retreat.") Going passive here allows Mehlman to make it sound like the polarization, etc., is just a condition the GOP encountered; they had nothing to do with creating it, but now that they know it's there, well, by golly, they're going let the people know they're for fixing it.

Notice he didn't say, "Both parties are at fault here, but for our part, we've been using increasingly shrill and polarizing rhetoric, going all the way back to Newt's days as a backbencher, and we've got to find a more productive way of expressing disagreement." Or, "We've made a point of campaigning on the most divisive issues we could find, and we've learned that, even if we win, that makes it really hard to govern." Or, "It's not all our doing, but we, through our style of leadership, helped make the disagreements in Washington much more personal, and we need to find a way to start undoing the damage."

Saying those things would mean taking personal responsibility, something the GOP favors, but for others.

Going forward, if the GOP doesn't recognize and take responsibility for its faults over the past 12 years, it won't mend them, and it won't be any better at governing the next time.

The third message is to say that people who are in public service ought to be about serving the public not aggrandizement for themselves, and certainly not for personal enrichment.

Well, actually, the GOP doesn't need to say people in public service ought to be trying to find and enact the best available policy for the country, it needs to do it the next time it gets a chance to govern.

Karl Rove talks about building a permanent Republican majority. It will never happen as long as Mehlman's (and Rove's) kind of thinking prevails in the party, because that kind of thinking doesn't work when you are the guy who has to govern, and therefore no like-minded Republican majority will ever be anything like permanent. Based on the last 60 or so years of congressional history, one would have to say that the Democrats are simply better at governing than the Republicans are. That's why they had a near-permanent majority during that period. It'll be interesting to see if that's still true after 12 yrs. in the wilderness.

Hail the Conquering Heroes!

2006-11-09T10:11:00.000-08:00

I’ve been absent for a while, but some of you may remember me. I’m the grouchy old retired guy who dabbles in history and long convoluted sentences.

I ‘d just like to echo Juvenal in sending out Congrats and Condolences to all concerned. Our election process has gotten so brutal that anyone who is willing to enter the public arena, whatever their motivation, deserves a little respect. Politicians being what they are, however, I’m sure that some of those on the short side will see their defeat as the final straw that ushers in a new “Dark Ages” of chaos and tyranny, while some of the winners will see their victory as the well deserved vindication of their morally and rationally superior character and philosophy. As usual, both will be mistaken.

More than anything, however, I’d like to congratulate us, the American electorate, for having peacefully completed the 109th election cycle under our present Constitution. The first assembly of Senators and Representatives convened in New York City on March 4, 1789, and it’s been pretty much business as usual ever since - except for two cycles during the Civil War (or, as some of my un-reconstructed friends call it “The War of Northern Aggression”). During that time, there were actually two congresses sitting - one in Washington and one in Richmond - resulting, I’m sure, in twice the bickering, back stabbing, name calling, and general all around “politicking” we’ve all come to know and love. Some of those election cycles were calm and uneventful, and some would make even our modern mud slinging contests look like church socials. Through it all, our country has survived and prospered beyond the wildest dreams of those men who first took office back in 1789. Hurray for the average American!

So much for the good news. For those of us who are sick to death of political hog wash from either side, the bad news is that the 110th election cycle has already started.

In 2008, it will have been 56 years since we’ve had a presidential election without either an incumbent president or vice-president on the ticket for either party. The last time this happened, we were in the middle of a confusing and not very popular war with American boys dying every day in some far off place; there were accusations of scandal; and the party in power’s approval ratings had sunk like a stone. The opposition nominated a very popular figure who ran on the platform of cleaning up the government, ending the war, and bringing the troops home. Does any of this sound familiar?

Fifty-six years ago, the opposition party candidate won 55.2% of the popular vote and 83% of the electoral vote. Running as an incumbent four years later, he received 57.5% of the popular vote and 86% of the electoral vote. History doesn’t always repeat itself, but, in this case, it has to make the current party holding the White House very nervous. Two years from now, it may be a different lady ordering new drapes for the Oval Office - again. For those of us who enjoyed watching the “Bill and Hil” show in the ‘90s, we might wake up some morning now long from now and hear some TV pundit saying

They’re Baaaaaaaaaack!

Fasten your seat belts.

The Emerging Movement

2006-11-09T07:33:00.000-08:00

(Since you guys wouldn't read the 30 page document I linked in a previous post, try my 4 1/2 page summary instead! I needed to do this anyway. I'd really like a conversation about this - yes, I'm begging.)

I’ll begin by admitting that, as a non-academic, I prefer the lectures I read from the Westminster Theological Seminary to be funny. So Scot McKnight is my hero. In his lecture, you’ll find terms like suck and lookee here alongside dictionary-searching words such as orthopraxy and epistemology. And an awful lot of Mark Twain.

McKnight begins by laying some groundwork:
* First, denying that the emerging church can be defined by the popular stereotypes such as… folks who deny truth exists, folks who are simply enamored with using candles and incense in worship, and folks who are Brian McLaren.
* Second, he denies any such thing as the emerging “church” even exists, calling it instead more of a movement or conversation.
* Third, specifically for Terry Austin, he clarifies the difference between the terms “emerging” and “emergent.” The latter refers to Emergent Village, as directed by Tony Jones. The former is “bigger, broader, and deeper.” A movement, not a place.
* Fourth, he agrees to the premise that the “emerging movement” is a protest movement, but not in the ways some characterize it to be: instead of denying “truth” per se (my understanding of his use of the term, epistemology here), it is more a protest about, or maybe against, “church” as we know it (ecclesiology).

And just before he develops his metaphor that grabbed me, he summed up his groundwork this way: “…if you narrow the emerging movement to Emergent Village, and especially to the postmodernist impulse therein, you can probably dismiss this movement as a small fissure in the evangelical movement. But, if you are serious enough to contemplate major trends in the Church today, at an international level, and if you define emerging as many of us do – in missional, or ecclesiological terms, rather than eptistemological ones – then you will learn quickly enough that there is a giant elephant in the middle of the Church’s living room. It is the emerging church movement and it is a definite threat to traditional evangelical ecclesiology.”

I found the lecture both scary and exhilarating, and for the same reason: I discovered that I am not alone in the world after all.

(Melodramatic? Maybe, but I’m not so sure…)

McKnight’s metaphor employed to describe the emerging movement is a lake (Lake Emerging) with four rivers flowing in (postmodern, praxis, postevangelical, and politics). Some folks are on one river near the point it flows into Lake Emerging. Some are in the lake, but near one of the specific rivers. Still others are splashing around in a confluence of all the rivers in this theoretical lake.

#1: THE POSTMODERN RIVER

It is in this river from whence the accusation of denying the existence of truth comes. Yet McKnight argues that this is a mistaken accusation. Instead, in this river, emerging thinkers “embrace…a chastened epistemology.” He goes on to explain, “LeRon Shults claims ‘from a theological perspective, this fixation with propositions can easily lead to the attempt to use the finite tool of language on an absolute Presence that transcends and embraces all finite reality… The truly infinite God of Christian faith is beyond all our linguistic grasping…and so the struggle to capture God in our finite propositional structures is nothing short of linguistic idolatry.’ Flaubert once remarked, when trying to express his love for his mistress, that the ‘language to do so was inept.’ That, my friends, is [what] some emerging postmodern Christians are trying to say. Language is inept to talk absolutely about God. I must confess that I am smitten with the potential adoration and awe that derives from such apophatic approaches to Christian theologizing, and I’m inclined to say Shults is right.”

McKnight concludes, “What I’m suggesting in this first point is that postmodernity, at various levels, is a recognizable river flowing into Lake Emerging: it is conscious, it is intentional, and it is desirable. Someone who eschews or bad-mouths – or who curses, as the Lutherans sometimes do – postmodernity cannot be emerging.”

#2: THE PRAXIS RIVER

To McKnight, this is the heart of the movement. He had suggested earlier a book by Eddie Gibbs and Ryan Bolger (Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures) as the best description of the movement, and he quotes it here: “Emerging churches are communities that practice the way of Jesus within postmodern cultures.”

My first impression of the “emerging movement” was that of candles and incense, and for many this remains the picture. McKnight inserts this aspect on the Praxis River, but wonders if this is really that big a deal to emerging folks after all. Instead, there is a definite feeling that “the way we do worship” is obviously not the end-all, be-all to Christianity. So they wonder – and practice – other ways to physically express worship.

But this is not the major current on the Praxis River. Instead, McKnight explains: “To be straight up about it, the emerging movement thinks how a person lives is more important than what they believe… And that the power of a life forms the best apologetic for the way of Jesus.”

Before the tomatoes start flying, McKnight goes on to say “I know of no one in the emerging movement who thinks one’s relationship to God is established by how one lives, nor do I know anyone who really thinks it doesn’t matter what one believes about Jesus Christ…” But… “emerging folk are quite proud to remind us that we will be judged according to the parable of the sheep and goats on how we treat the least of these, and that the wise man is one who practices the words of Jesus. On top of this, some are quite fond of reminding us that Jesus didn’t offer a doctrinal statement but a way of life, and that he called people to follow him and not just to get their theology right.”

Emerging folks notice that no one has ever got it all “right” when it comes to theology, which (McKnight concludes), “leads them to concentrate on living the way of Jesus. We may not get it right when it comes to theology, so what we are called to do is live right…”

As a result, emerging folks are interested in social justice. McKnight argues that the approach to social justice, however, is not related to the Religious Right’s emphases on the issues of abortion and militarism, but the historical approach of Walter Rauschenbusch (architect of the social gospel) and Jane Addams.

Finally, the Praxis River is missional. McKnight writes, “…the missional impulse of the emerging movement finds its perfect expression in the ministry of Jesus – who went about doing good – to bodies and to spirits and to souls and to families and to societies. He swept up the marginalized from the floor and put them back on their seats at the table, and he attracted harlots and tax collectors, and wiped the lame clean and opened the ears of the deaf. He cared, in other words, about bodies and whole persons. He attacked the vicious injustices of the Herods and the Caesars and the religious elite of Israel, and he declared in tones even more strident than Jim Wallis that what they were doing was flat-out wrong and it had to change. The central element of this missional praxis is that the emerging movement is not attractional in its model of the church but is instead missional: that is, it does not invite people to church but instead wanders into the world as the church. It asks its community, ‘How can we help you?’ instead of knocking on doors to increase membership. In other words, it becomes a community with open windows and open doors and sees Sunday morning as the opportunity to prepare for a week of service to the community, asking not how many are attending the services but what redemptive traits are we seeing in our community. It wants to embody a life that is other-oriented rather than self-oriented, that is community-directed rather than church-oriented.”

(It is here that I’m prepared to come forward as we stand and sing.)

#3: THE POST-EVANGELICAL RIVER:

The emerging movement is a protest against evangelicalism.

McKnight begins with this simple explanation: “The gospel is more than Jesus coming to die for my sins so I can get to heaven.” He explains that this reduction of the gospel is rejected by the emerging movement. “Not in the sense of abandonment, not in the sense of rendering obsolete, but in the sense of taking up and moving beyond…”

McKnight guesses that the emerging movement is not necessarily post-evangelical in basic theology, but very much so when it comes to the Christian life and theology. (My gross simplification: “God, Jesus, Bible, Church, Spirit, etc. – okay, that’s not the argument. But how do we live?”)

First, “the emerging movement is perhaps annoyed more by Bible thumpers and Christians who are obsessed with being biblical than anything else – not because they disparage the Bible but because they know too many Christians whose theology is all that matters to them, who render judgment on everything and everyone – with Bible verses to back it up – but who don’t live compassionately…” He goes on, “When I wrote Jesus Creed to show how central loving God and loving others was to his ethics, I didn’t know my idea was emerging. Whether it is or not, it is biblical: Jesus said the whole Law hangs from these two commandments… The emerging movement thinks love defines Christian existence. Which means reading about love and exegeting agapao and the likes are not enough."

Second, the emerging movement is suspicious of systematic theology. After offering several reasons why, McKnight writes, “Frankly, the emerging movement loves ideas and theology; sometime sit down with its leaders and its participants and you’ll find that they love theology – they just don’t “have” a theology and don’t “subscribe to” a theology or “confess” a theology. They believe the Great Traditions offers us ways of telling the truth about God’s redemption in Christ, but they don’t believe any one theology gets it absolutely right.

Third, the emerging movement is skeptical of the “in vs. out” mentality that comes with evangelicalism. McKnight explains, “Let’s get the foil for the emergents on the table: evangelicals render judgment on who is and who isn’t a Christian… The emerging movement is skeptical of our ability to know such things.” McKnight goes on to show the negative implications this has toward evangelism and challenges the movement in this regard, but this strand of protest is against a movement defined by evangelism, even if it hasn’t articulated a coherent alternative to its traditional practice.

#4: THE POLITICAL RIVER

Quoting yet again, “Lake Emerging also receives a river called political, and here I’m talking now only about the USA. Tony Jones is regularly told that the emerging movement is a latte-drinking, backpack-lugging, Birkenstock-wearing, group of 21st Century left-wing hippie wannabes. Put directly, they are Democrats. And that spells ‘doomed’ for conservative evangelicals.”

Later, “…although emerging leaders often speak of the bi-partisan or non-partisan nature of emergent, I don’t see it. I think they are mostly political left. Brian McLaren called for a ‘purple’ politics. I’ll believe the emerging movement is ‘purple’ in politics when I see a politics that is genuinely moderate, genuinely independent, and genuinely willing to criticize both the Republicans for their godless emphasis on money and the Democrats for their godless emphasis on amorality.”

McKnight believes that Jim Wallis is Walter Rauschenbusch a century later and argues that Wallis’ solitary message to the evangelical church is that justice in the world matters to God. McKnight agrees, but raises the question of how justice is defined. He goes on to say that when he reads emerging folks write about justice, he thinks he is hearing the Democratic platform. He concludes, “I could be wrong. But this is what I see.”

CONCLUSION

McKnight concludes with his thesis that the emerging movement is more about ecclesiology than epistemology – more about “how to do church by practicing the way of Jesus in postmodernity” than a theological statement.

I conclude by saying that I was both frightened and exhilarated to read about myself in light of a “movement.” Frightened because I haven’t been subscribing to the company newsletters (my initial impression of emerging led me to avoid the literature), and exhilarated because I’m a lonely person (although I find encouragement from the houseflies from time to time, I feel very much alone in the world as to my worldview).

I guess I am not alone after all. I do not know the implications of being able to say that aloud.

Congrats and Condolences

2006-11-08T10:37:00.000-08:00

Congrats to Nancy Pelosi, soon to be the first woman in American history to be Speaker of the House.

Condolences to Rick Santorum's kids, who were just pitiful, standing there behind their dad.

Congrats to Claire McCaskill, who defeated an incumbent who had done nothing to annoy his constituency. She simply convinced the people of MO that she could do the job better.

Condolences to Jim Talent, said incumbent, and to Lincoln Chafee, who also had done nothing to annoy his voters.

Congrats to Christopher Shays, a similarly situated Republican incumbent who managed to avoid the same fate.

Condolences to Harold Ford, Jr., who came up a bit short, but gave the best speech I heard all night.

Congrats to Arnold Schwarzenegger, who gets the "Comeback Kid" Award for this cycle.

Condolences to the people of Virginia, who had to choose between a [mostly] closeted racist and a [mostly] closeted misogynist for their senator.

Congrats to Jon Tester, who can now say, "That's Senator Meatloaf, to you, bub."

Condolences to gays and lesbians who wanted to get married in, well, name a state.

Congrats to Jeff Greenfield, who turned in another pitch-perfect night of brainy-whimsical election coverage.

Condolences to Chris Matthews and Joe Scarborough, who, come awards season, will share an Emmy for "Best Performance as a Cranky Old Ass."

Election Day Kerfuffle

2006-11-07T10:21:00.000-08:00

Here's a spot for discussing Election Day stuff. I see, already, that we're going to be hearing a lot about problems with the new electronic voting machines, again. My question is this: don't these election officials do anything ahead of time? Like, say, turn their machines on and see if they even run? I mean, cripes, it sounds like Election Day at the official poll-opening time is quite literally the first time they'd even turned these things on.

I should add that I'm not complaining about the volunteers who work in polling places. They are volunteers, providing a public service, and do the best they can. The problem is the paid officials, who apparently did no advance planning, testing, or training with the new voting technology.

And Speaking of Amendments ...

2006-11-06T07:42:00.000-08:00

I had no idea until today that Virginia has a truly frightening, draconian one on the ballot tomorrow. What is the world coming to?

Another One Bites the Dust

2006-11-06T06:57:00.000-08:00

Are my friends and I bad people for cackling just a little at the Reverend Ted Haggard story? I mean, I know it's not the case that every homophobic man might be projecting a little, but then you hear these stories and raise an eyebrow ... I say hats off to the guy who outed him. It was absolutely hypocritical to be campaigning for that sad, tired constitutional amendment when you're getting some from a man on the side. (Or has he admitted to anything beyond the massage yet?) At least gay men who want to marry their partners aren't cheating on their wives. I mean, really, what is the worse kind of life to lead? If Haggard is gay (and he may not be, he may just have been experimenting), I hope that he will be able to live an honest life in the future.

Sailing on Lake Emerging

2006-11-03T08:30:00.000-08:00

Wow.

This is for the religiously-interested among us. I took the time to print off the thirty-page document found here titled, “What is the Emerging Church?” by Scot McKnight. It is his lecture given eight days ago at Westminster Theological Seminary, and it is very thought-provoking for me at the very least. I’m obviously sailing around Lake Emerging somehow (which will make sense once you read his diagnosis). This will give me great cause for reflection, and I suspect a few of you will be interested as well.

Beyond the Pale

2006-11-03T07:11:00.000-08:00

JU mentioned in a comment the other day that he finds electioneering depressing. Well, yes. When the attack ads are as vicious, slimy, and utterly false as they have been during this election season, it does tend to make one pessimistic about the state of the country and of democracy in general. I will be the first to admit that both parties use negative ads to distort their opponents' positions -- and that that is wrong when anyone does it. But as this article demonstrates, whatever their other faults, Democrats ain't got nothin' on Republicans when it comes to dirty and false campaigning. (I can probably get away with saying this now since all those who once would have challenged me are no longer involved with the blog). If anyone can point out to me a Democratic ad from this year that is anywhere near as disgusting as the ads discussed in this article, I would be willing to rethink my position.

P.S. What the f**k is up with the whole NAMBLA thing? I'm about tired of hearing about it. Can we just set the record straight right now: the ACLU does not defend the right of men to have sex with underage boys. Rather, they defend the First Amendment associational right of the organization to exist. Geez.

Finally...

2006-11-02T06:32:00.000-08:00

You will all be glad to know that we’re finally to the end of Walter Wink’s The Powers That Be (smile). Below, I will offer my overall summary of the book’s argument, followed by printing the epilogue from Wink.

My summary:
* Unseen world forces (i.e. “principalities and powers”) seek to dominate the world, and in so doing, war against God’s desire for justice.
* God’s war strategy (taught by Jesus) dismisses both the practice of violence (“morally illegitimate or excessive use of force”) and pacifism as commonly understood, choosing instead to fight the Powers in a third way: nonviolent, creative resistance.
* The reason for this choice of weaponry is a love for ALL mankind (including enemies).
* The path to war begins in prayer, calling on God to do what is right in the world (to the extent that God can act in the face of the Powers’ freedom), and realigning those praying with their role in social justice.

EPILOGUE

My friend Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer once found himself walking through the streets of Calcutta, so enraged by the poverty that he wanted to scream at God, “How can you allow such suffering?” Then he came to a painful realization: “In the suffering of the poor God was screaming at me, in fact at all of us and at our institutions and social systems that cause and perpetuate hunger, poverty, and inequality.” We end, then, with that divine cry ringing in our ears, exhorting us to engage these mighty Powers in the strength of the Holy Spirit, that human life might become more fully human.

This is the goal: not only to become free from the Powers, but to free the Powers. Jesus came not only to reconcile people to God despite the Powers, but to reconcile the Powers themselves to God (Col. 1:20). We seek not only to break the idolatrous spells cast over people by the Powers, but to break the ability of the Powers to cast idolatrous spells. “The Son of God was revealed for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8). We need to escape idolatry, not this planet. We do not seek to rid ourselves of subsystems and structures in order to secure an individualistic paradise on earth or an afterlife in heaven. We seek, rather, to relate these systems to the One in and through and for whom they exist, and in whom all things hold together (Col. 1:16-17).

The passion that drove the early Christians to evangelistic zeal was not fueled just by the desire to increase church membership or to usher people safely into a compensatory heaven after death. Their passion was fired above all by relief at being liberated from the delusions being spun over them by the Powers. Being thus freed determined them to set others free. In the final analysis, the gospel is not a message of escape to another world, but of rescue from the enticements of “this world” (the Domination System) and its ultimate transformation, when “all nations shall come and worship” God (Rev. 15:4). Eternal life is not something reserved for the future in another reality, but begins now, the moment we become alive to God and God’s revealer (John 17:3).

In a pluralistic world in which we are privileged to learn from all religious and philosophical traditions, Christians still have a story to tell to the nations. Who knows – telling it may do no one so much good as ourselves. And as we tell it and live it, we may see ourselves – and maybe even the world – a little bit transformed.

The No A**hole Rule

2006-11-01T12:51:00.000-08:00

I apologize for being so absent the past few weeks. I had an insane week at work two weeks ago and then I was out all last week. My friend Lucy got married this past Saturday and I was in my first wedding, in a fuchsia bridesmaid dress. (Lucy loves bright colors and had wanted a summer wedding, which scheduling issues did not permit). My hair did turn out well, though -- everyone was complimenting me on it, which I took as a sign that my hair usually looks like crap. :)

I also haven't had much to post on lately, but a colleague from work sent me a link to this blog post, a review of a new book with the above-mentioned title, and I thought, I need to go out and get this book. It is truly one of the most difficult parts of being a lawyer to have to deal with a**holes. (I include the asterisks out of respect for Al, who asked me not to curse on the blog in case his daughter reads it). And there are a lot of them. Occasionally they are clients, but most often they are your co-counsel or opposing counsel. Generally you get it most within your own workplace.

I've basically come to the conclusion that neither of my bosses has much respect for me, though one is definitely nicer than the other. The nicer one is the one I work with, the other one I have avoided since my last review when he said, in so many words, that he didn't think I was cut out to be a lawyer. It was a completely unfair assessment of me, and he gave no specific examples to support his assertion, which, in fairness, was phrased as a question of "whether I really wanted to do this work."

The truth is, in a lot of ways I'm not cut out to be a lawyer, but all of them are to my credit. I am honest, above board, and civil/kind in my dealings with people. I do not try to deceive through cleverness and I do not play dirty tricks. I have a hard time arguing a position when I don't believe in it personally or when I know the law is not on my side. I hate schmoozing (even if it's politely called "networking") and am terrible at it. I don't care about money and am more interested in helping people, which I have come to realize is not considered a valuable trait at my firm. I think the concept of the billable hour is an absurd way to evaluate employees, and as I've mentioned in a previous post, I believe in the 40 hour week, also not a popular view in the legal profession.

I don't know where I'm going with this, except to say that this post was sent by a colleague to all of the associates in my office. We're all in a bit of a funk about the direction of the firm. Fortunately, there is one saving grace -- we all like each other a lot and get along well. We just needed a little primer on how to deal with those we don't.