There are two stages to my terror when faced with a large personal/professional obligation:
1. Research
2. Primping
The first one of these is actually a pretty good reaction. When I am taking a matter seriously, I look it up.
Until very recently, I was constantly getting in trouble with my friends who were passionate about a subject. They'd say
"CC," (Truth be told only one set of very old friends calls me CC, but blog conventions must be honored) "This is an incredibly big deal! A is true!" and I'd say "huh." Then I'd go home, often worried, and I'd look it up and the next day I'd send them an email like.
"Hey, guess what. A is mostly true. But B is also sometimes true. So the situation is not quite so bad as you'd feared."
It turns out, it took me 37 years and change to understand, people who are passionate about things hate this. They want to focus on the black and white of the situation, and to be looking at an awful situation in its face. They want the situation to be as bad as they feel it is.
Some years ago, I lost a person who was extremely important to me over this. (No, not theCSO. TheCSO does this herself. Ours is a marriage in which being technically correct is the best kind of correct and we're both happy that way.) Anyway, this person who was very important to me got into an argument over a really silly topic and when I emailed some more information, this person who was very important to me decided not to be friends anymore because she was tired of fighting with me.
I wasn't FIGHTING, I thought at the time, I was HELPING.
I still never got my person back.
Sometimes in my dreams she calls me up and we work it out. Waking up is kind of a bummer.
Last year, I made another friend who was passionate about things. At one point, we talked it out and now when she says A is true, I am present for her in her truth because while I may have boring hair, I'm not stupid.
But back to the hair coloring.
This person I lost some years ago was something of a mother figure, and parenting is on my mind for reasons that I trust will become obvious though I haven't exactly figured out what I'm writing next because that's how this whole stream-of-consciousness thing works.
After the research phase, and I have had the research phase, ask me anything about guardianship law, comes the primping phase, in which I decide that if I am a mess inside, surely looking good outside will hide that. Even as I type, I'm aware that this is as stupid as it sounds. I kid you not, the night before my first law school class, I dropped like fifty bucks on those Isreali sea salt beauty products that they sell at the mall.
I wore entirely new clothes for both days of the bar and afterwards was tempted to burn them so I'd wear them for no lesser event. I didn't. I'm too cheap to do that and I wear unnatural fibers so the smell would have been awful.
So, yeah, when three days before my Aunt's guardianship hearing, I start checking groupon for a good deal on a cut, maybe some highlights to frame my face, that's a really bad sign.
Probate court in the District of Columbia is a very strange thing. My favorite thing about it, and I do have a favorite thing, is that they have the wills of various historical figures framed and up on the walls. I am totally not making this up. You can go to the DC probate court and see a page from Dolly Madison's will.
On Thursday, barring the unforeseen, I'm going to probate court to accept legal responsibility for my Aunt.
If you're my facebook friend, you've followed some of this. If you've been reading TheChaliceBlog for a really long time, you know her as TheChaliceRelative. Either way, she's my aunt, and she's 86* and she's not really my aunt anymore because she no longer knows some of the things my aunt knows.
She tells me I should lose weight because she's my aunt. That doesn't hurt my feelings because she's not anymore so I kinda don't give a fuck what she thinks of my physique. She has Schrodinger's personality and on Thursday it becomes my job to be responsible for her.
She's in a home that does a flawed but reasonable job taking care of her. They would like guardianship but I'm probably going to get it. I consider myself the world's okayest caregiver.
Last time she was in the hospital, I had to meet with the social worker when she was released.
"I'm what she's got," I said.
"What about your parents?" the social worker said.
"My dad's an unmedicated schizophrenic who has had a lot of strokes. My mom is occupied with him,"
"Does your aunt have any other brothers or sisters?"
"They're dead."
"What about you, do you have siblings?"
"My brothers are not in a position to care for other people." I paused. "I'm what she's got."
It went on like that.
I'm what she's got now, and I'm not sure that the probable result of Thursday will change much of that. Mostly, it will be me doing more paperwork. I was explaining this to her last Friday and she said that it was bizarre to imagine me with that job because I was so terrible at arithmetic. She said that because she's my aunt, it didn't hurt because she's not.
Right now I'm thinking about Pema Chodron, with whom I'm obsessed right now, writing:
“To be fully alive, fully human, and completely awake is to be continually thrown out of the nest."
As the hospital social worker painstakingly drew out of me above, I don't have much of a nest as far as blood relations go. (My self-constructed nest of friends is awesome, though.)
Still, there's something to note in getting thrown out of the two twigs stuck together that is the nest represented by an aunt who is partly not. I don't feel alive and fully human and completely awake.
I feel like getting my hair cut and colored in hopes that maybe when I look in the mirror, I will see a different person, ideally one more equipped to deal with the situation.
So, anyway, I'm thinking tomorrow I will call up a few hair salons. I don't have the cash to keep up baylage and I'm fairly certain ombre is on the way out, so maybe I'll just get gloss. I don't really want to change the color. Just monkey with it a little. Give it some shape.
My hair never has shape.
I'd like to look like me, for court, but also not me.
CC
* Non-stream of consciousness footnote: My Dad was a late-in-life accident. I was a sort of mid-life accident. Aside from making my very existence improbable, this also means that the generations in my family are kinda fucked up, which is how I have an aunt almost fifty years older than I am.
Showing posts sorted by date for query stupid. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query stupid. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Monday, September 12, 2016
Friday, April 30, 2010
Grr, Dan Savage
Well-known transphobic and general jerkass Dan Savage is also a pit bull hater and kind of stupid about it. On his blog, he asks...
""An Aurora man has been charged with battery after attacking his sister with a pit bull, according to Aurora police. Rey Jaquez, 50, of the 1000 block of East New York Street, was charged with two counts of domestic battery on Monday after he threw the pit bull at his sister and the dog bit her, police said.
A question for pit bull apologists: we hear you, we hear you. There are no bad dogs, only bad dog owners, and perhaps it's unfair to take a dim view of an entire breed when it's actually a particular breed of humans who are to blame for all those maladjusted, poorly socialized, violent pit bulls making the news. But how are we supposed to tell the difference? When a pit, perhaps unleashed, is trotting towards us, how are we supposed to determine that this particular pit has a good owner? Do we guess? Cross our fingers—while they're still attached—and hope for the best? Or, considering the potential consequences if we guess wrong, do we presume all pit bulls have bad owners for the exact same reasons we presume all guns are loaded?""
First of all, if a pitbull is being THROWN AT YOU per the article that sparked this question, it's probably safe to say that the dog will be scared and frustrated and angry when it falls to earth, any kind of dog would be. Savage ironically titles his article "it's not the dog, it's the owner" as if he doesn't think having an owner who throws dogs across the room would contribute at all to one of those dogs at some point biting somebody.
As for meeting a strange dog on the street, if the dog is standing rigid, barking at you, crouching and bearing her teeth, or growling and coming out you with her head near the ground, that dog is about to make trouble. In that instance, you should stand still, speak softly and always remain facing the dog. If you've done nothing to antagonize the dog, in theory you should be fine.
I should mention that meeting strange dogs on the street is not something you should try to do. For a dog to be roaming around leashless with no obvious owner is a bad sign. A much worse sign, actually, than a dog having been born a pit bull.
CC
Criminal Justice *headdesk* of the day. Like a golden retriever can attack someone and never have to worry that her breed will be banned, cops can usually drive drunk and know that the other cops and paramedics will cover for them, even when they kill people.
""An Aurora man has been charged with battery after attacking his sister with a pit bull, according to Aurora police. Rey Jaquez, 50, of the 1000 block of East New York Street, was charged with two counts of domestic battery on Monday after he threw the pit bull at his sister and the dog bit her, police said.
A question for pit bull apologists: we hear you, we hear you. There are no bad dogs, only bad dog owners, and perhaps it's unfair to take a dim view of an entire breed when it's actually a particular breed of humans who are to blame for all those maladjusted, poorly socialized, violent pit bulls making the news. But how are we supposed to tell the difference? When a pit, perhaps unleashed, is trotting towards us, how are we supposed to determine that this particular pit has a good owner? Do we guess? Cross our fingers—while they're still attached—and hope for the best? Or, considering the potential consequences if we guess wrong, do we presume all pit bulls have bad owners for the exact same reasons we presume all guns are loaded?""
First of all, if a pitbull is being THROWN AT YOU per the article that sparked this question, it's probably safe to say that the dog will be scared and frustrated and angry when it falls to earth, any kind of dog would be. Savage ironically titles his article "it's not the dog, it's the owner" as if he doesn't think having an owner who throws dogs across the room would contribute at all to one of those dogs at some point biting somebody.
As for meeting a strange dog on the street, if the dog is standing rigid, barking at you, crouching and bearing her teeth, or growling and coming out you with her head near the ground, that dog is about to make trouble. In that instance, you should stand still, speak softly and always remain facing the dog. If you've done nothing to antagonize the dog, in theory you should be fine.
I should mention that meeting strange dogs on the street is not something you should try to do. For a dog to be roaming around leashless with no obvious owner is a bad sign. A much worse sign, actually, than a dog having been born a pit bull.
CC
Criminal Justice *headdesk* of the day. Like a golden retriever can attack someone and never have to worry that her breed will be banned, cops can usually drive drunk and know that the other cops and paramedics will cover for them, even when they kill people.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
I did warn y'all about President Morales doing stuff like this...
Remember way back when UUism was down by less than 100 people and Morales made a big, election-friendly fuss about how we were way down without actually mentioning that the drop was so small as to be statistically insignificant? And when somebody asked the candidates what mistakes they had made and Hallman candidly answered about problems with Pathways, while Morales said something politician-y about how hard it is to schedule a church service when his church had SO MANY MEMBERS?
I wrote then "I don't believe him. I don't want a marketer, I want a minister."
Recent stuff the UUA under Morales has been up to includes slashing the Commission on Appraisal's Budget, according to President Morales, "as a way of initiating a conversation about the committee." Cutting the UUA Washington office is supposed to improve advocacy for reasons no one can explain. Merging a couple of our social witness departments and giving them less money is supposed to improve things.
Of those three issues, the Commission on Appraisal bothers me the most. I think of it as UUism's R&D and I appreciate having a committee to look at potential issues within the UUA and make recommendations. It is supposed to be independent, which Morales paints as "lacking in accountability." Source.
He made a lot of pretty statements on the campaign trail about raising membership. I'm not holding him to those. I am asking when he's going to quit insulting everybody's intelligence with all this marketing blather and just talk to us like we're reasonable people.
CC
who also thinks this is a really stupid time to be shifting duties from volunteers to paid staff in the name of "Policy Governance," but that's another post.
I wrote then "I don't believe him. I don't want a marketer, I want a minister."
Recent stuff the UUA under Morales has been up to includes slashing the Commission on Appraisal's Budget, according to President Morales, "as a way of initiating a conversation about the committee." Cutting the UUA Washington office is supposed to improve advocacy for reasons no one can explain. Merging a couple of our social witness departments and giving them less money is supposed to improve things.
Of those three issues, the Commission on Appraisal bothers me the most. I think of it as UUism's R&D and I appreciate having a committee to look at potential issues within the UUA and make recommendations. It is supposed to be independent, which Morales paints as "lacking in accountability." Source.
He made a lot of pretty statements on the campaign trail about raising membership. I'm not holding him to those. I am asking when he's going to quit insulting everybody's intelligence with all this marketing blather and just talk to us like we're reasonable people.
CC
who also thinks this is a really stupid time to be shifting duties from volunteers to paid staff in the name of "Policy Governance," but that's another post.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Digital Natives II: Trying to answer really hard questions
Dancing Hippie asked me some excellent but difficult questions in the "Digital Natives" post about what a church that moved in a Digital Native direction might look like. Before I start, I want to emphasize that this is not "Chalicechick's Decree of What You Should Do Right This Minute," merely one potential vision for the future.
DH's questions are bolded and set off.
(((But what does a social media integrated congregation mean? What aspects of church life would work in social media?)))
Being a law nerd, the aspects I am most interested in are governance aspects. I've been in a church or two where information seemed to be kept closely guarded and everybody just sort of went along with whatever the board suggested since this meant that they were the only ones who reliably knew what was going on. IMHO, this model is unsustainable in a world where people are used to a more free exchange of information and it isn't a good example of our democratic principles in action.
I don't see why our enhanced abilities to communicate with one another can't take some of the power back away from boards and committees and put it in the hands of the congregation, for example. If anyone who logs in to the member portion of the website can read the information that is given to the board and can vote on things, I think you're going to find a congregation that is more engaged and even makes better decisions.
I attended a congregation for awhile where someone literally told me that new membership ideas were well and good, but Myrtle had been membership chair for X number of years and if she didn't like the new ideas, well, we couldn't go hurting Myrtle's feelings, now could we? (Name changed to protect Myrtle.) I think that's an extreme example, but I think it is really easy for congregations to slip in to patterns like this where new ideas have to get past gatekeepers. If the whole congregation is not just allowed to make suggestions to Myrtle individually and be turned down individually, but allowed to discuss suggestions in a message-board-type area, then when lots of people think something is a good idea, it is more likely to happen, especially if they are allowed to take a vote and make it happen.*
Most of us aren't at our best in lengthy congregational meetings where all communication is verbal. Why not have a week long "meeting" where debates can happen online in a message board format and everybody votes at the end? Or why have the "meeting" once a year at all? Why not address issues as they come up?
TheCSO pointed out that so much of this sounds like an online version of the "town meeting" format that our religious ancestors liked to use. I don't think the early congregationalists had "nominating committees." Are we sure we need them now? Conversely, I don't think anyone would disagree that there are a few areas that might be exceptions. We don't all need to know how much everybody pledges, for example and I have no problem with the church staff being the only ones who know that. HR issues involving staff seem like another good example.
I know a guy with a finance resume that would knock you over who was told he couldn't be nominated to his church's endowment committee because the committee had "too many white males." I will spare you the list of reasons why this is stupid and simply say that if instead of a committee, there were a message board where people could put up ideas and convince other people to vote for the best ones, then he could have participated and likely won people over. The good ideas should be allowed to win, IMHO.
But there are lots of ways that spreading information around can be helpful to the congregation even in places you wouldn't expect. One simple thing my church does already that I think is fabulous is to send out "Joys and Concerns" from the previous week as part of a mass email to the congregation each week. When I am in church and something is announced, unless I whip out my cell phone and note it right then, I'm likely to forget. If you put "Joys and Concerns" in my e-mail box, when I read it I can easily fire off e-mails and facebook messages of congratulation or offering help, send flowers and in other ways reach out to people in a way that can carry the interaction a long way past Sunday morning.
For another example, I know the minister of a very small church that expects her to be in charge of everything. Members of her congregation say all the time "Oh, if you need something, please call" but then she has to call and hear their excuse and then call someone else, etc, etc. My suggestion was that when someone says "call me if you need anything," she should say "can I add you to my e-mail list?"
That way, if she needs an extra sitter for the choir concert or if the secretary is sick and she needs someone to run off and fold the newsletter, she sends out one email to the "Help the minister" list, people who can help respond, and she's done.
Don't know if she has implemented that.
But I think it is a good example of how not every suggestion for using technology has to be a big radical change, though I certainly suggested some big radical changes above.
(((Would a new role for pastors be to follow the tweets of members to get feedback the way a marketing departments follow some tweets?)))
Honestly, I'd say that if your church has a staff membership person, then they should probably have twitter searches already set up so on the rare occasion that someone tweets about the church they at least see it. Wouldn't you want to know what people were saying? I doubt people tweet about churches much, but when they do, would be nice if someone at the church saw that and the way to do it is with automatic searches, not reading every member's twitter feed.
Also, I had a bit of theological snark about a skit my church choir did recently and if I'd had a place to mention it to just the folks from my church, it probably wouldn't have ended up on twitter since I usually don't like to put things on my twitter feed that most of my friends won't understand.
(((I grew up as the son of a pastor and the time I had with my dad was limited enough as it was with him off at meetings and weddings and funerals all the time. How much time would I have had with him if he had to follow fb and twitter all the time in addition to these other traditional roles. Would my current church have to hire a third pastor just to minister to the tweets?))
Katy-the-Wise still does "sermon talkback" at her church. If it works the same way it did at her old church, you have a few minutes to get a cup of coffee, then Katy and interested congregants meet back in the sanctuary for an informal discussion of the sermon. If you have questions about the sermon, if you disagree or if you entirely didn't get it, you can ask the minister and everybody can talk about your question.
Some ministers view this practice as "let's attack the minister time." Some church members (i.e. jerks) try to use it that way. It never really worked with Katy because whatever you were talking about, Katy-the-Wise had thought about it more than you had and could issue an analytical smackdown if one was deserved. I don't just call her that because it sounds cool.**
Her sermon talkbacks ran between half and hour and an hour and I can honestly say that they were more spiritually helpful than anything I have ever done in Unitarian Universalism. I learned SO MUCH and developed SO MUCH spiritually from those conversations. I think back on them all the time and would love to attend a church that still has them because I got so much out of them. Indeed, when someone asks me a hard question on the Chaliceblog, I think of Katy, throw my shoulders back, and start typing. (OK, sometimes I go think about it for awhile. But the throwing shoulders back and typing occurs soon enough.)
Since my impression is that a lot of ministers feel like they are being given the third degree when talkback is done verbally, why not have an online sermon discussion running for a couple of weeks after each sermon? People with varying reactions to the sermon can show up and talk about it and clear up one another's confusions and then the minister can comment as necessary.
Depending on whether the minister wanted to provide more explanation or mostly let people who were on the right track discuss it out amongst themselves, that would take some time, but if the minister had less committee work (see above suggestions) then he/she would have time for that. And I think most ministers would RATHER have theological discussions than do committee work. My goodness, I hope they would.
That said, there are a fair number of ministers already who post their sermons on blogs that allow comments. Though some sermons get responses, Ms. Kitty's in particular seem to get discussion, "online sermon talkbacks" haven't really caught on. But then, we haven't advertised them as such. I think the idea still has potential when introduced to the congregation as a whole.
(((How would any of this make young adults feel there is anything other than RE?)))
By bringing them into decision-making that engages them as adults, by connecting them to other people in the church through discussions of things theological and not that can lead them to find things they have in common with other members, and by making church something you check into for a few minutes once a or twice a day as you're on your laptop in bed or while you're bored at work as opposed to something you do on Sundays then forget about.
(((At our church we have small group ministries aka chalice circles, so I suppose you could have a virtual chalice circle, but that doesn't sound fulfilling to me in the same way as a small group meeting during the week.)))
I certainly don't think we should get rid of in-person interactions like this one. That said, I like online discussions because I often formulate my opinions better in writing and much prefer the "read someone's three paragraphs, think about what they said for awhile as I do something else, write three paragraphs in response" approach to a verbal discussion, at least as far as this sort of thing is concerned. Also, I'm a night law student with a really irregular schedule. I've never seen a small group that was meeting at a time when I was sure I could consistently make it.
Anyway, I think we should have room for both approaches.
Indeed, I think online stuff works best when it is enhancing offline social interaction rather than replacing it. I'd love to see more inter-church online discussions of regular life stuff that could bring people together and help them realize how much they have in common and how much they will have to talk about when they see each other on Sunday.
In a side note, there's an RE class at my church that meets EVERY SPRING that I have wanted to join for THREE YEARS but that has never met on a night that my crazy-scheduled self could make it. If they offered it online, I would sign up in a second. As it is, I likely won't be able to take it until 2012.
(((I'm certainly out of the age group that Wikipedia defines for the natives, but I've also been one of those pioneers who built the technology that the natives live with, so I don't feel like I'm out of the loop, but perhaps I am.))
I was born on third base. You hit the triple. That said, I find this vision of a minimally hierarchical church that is focused on discussion and collaboration invigorating and exciting and very consistent with the way a church run by people who value what we say we value should work and I wanna go. I don't think you're out of the loop, you seem like I smart person to me and if you read this and hate all these possibilities and/or don't think they would work, well I'm just a layperson with no religious training who gave it a shot and goodness knows which one of us is right.
Time may tell, I suppose.
CC
*I'm writing this terrifyingly aware of how lots of UUs often think something is a good idea that Chalicechick considers a bad idea. But I can accept being outvoted. Being unilaterally vetoed by Myrtles is much rougher on me.
** Very early into my UUism career, Katy gave a sermon about the nature of vulgarity, how our notions of it have changed, what it means for us to have vulgar things and what it means to use vulgarity. At sermon talkback, Chalicechick raised her hand and when called on said "Course jocosity catches the crowd."
Katy finished "Shakespeare and I are often low-browed."
I regard that moment as the beginning of a beautiful friendship.
DH's questions are bolded and set off.
(((But what does a social media integrated congregation mean? What aspects of church life would work in social media?)))
Being a law nerd, the aspects I am most interested in are governance aspects. I've been in a church or two where information seemed to be kept closely guarded and everybody just sort of went along with whatever the board suggested since this meant that they were the only ones who reliably knew what was going on. IMHO, this model is unsustainable in a world where people are used to a more free exchange of information and it isn't a good example of our democratic principles in action.
I don't see why our enhanced abilities to communicate with one another can't take some of the power back away from boards and committees and put it in the hands of the congregation, for example. If anyone who logs in to the member portion of the website can read the information that is given to the board and can vote on things, I think you're going to find a congregation that is more engaged and even makes better decisions.
I attended a congregation for awhile where someone literally told me that new membership ideas were well and good, but Myrtle had been membership chair for X number of years and if she didn't like the new ideas, well, we couldn't go hurting Myrtle's feelings, now could we? (Name changed to protect Myrtle.) I think that's an extreme example, but I think it is really easy for congregations to slip in to patterns like this where new ideas have to get past gatekeepers. If the whole congregation is not just allowed to make suggestions to Myrtle individually and be turned down individually, but allowed to discuss suggestions in a message-board-type area, then when lots of people think something is a good idea, it is more likely to happen, especially if they are allowed to take a vote and make it happen.*
Most of us aren't at our best in lengthy congregational meetings where all communication is verbal. Why not have a week long "meeting" where debates can happen online in a message board format and everybody votes at the end? Or why have the "meeting" once a year at all? Why not address issues as they come up?
TheCSO pointed out that so much of this sounds like an online version of the "town meeting" format that our religious ancestors liked to use. I don't think the early congregationalists had "nominating committees." Are we sure we need them now? Conversely, I don't think anyone would disagree that there are a few areas that might be exceptions. We don't all need to know how much everybody pledges, for example and I have no problem with the church staff being the only ones who know that. HR issues involving staff seem like another good example.
I know a guy with a finance resume that would knock you over who was told he couldn't be nominated to his church's endowment committee because the committee had "too many white males." I will spare you the list of reasons why this is stupid and simply say that if instead of a committee, there were a message board where people could put up ideas and convince other people to vote for the best ones, then he could have participated and likely won people over. The good ideas should be allowed to win, IMHO.
But there are lots of ways that spreading information around can be helpful to the congregation even in places you wouldn't expect. One simple thing my church does already that I think is fabulous is to send out "Joys and Concerns" from the previous week as part of a mass email to the congregation each week. When I am in church and something is announced, unless I whip out my cell phone and note it right then, I'm likely to forget. If you put "Joys and Concerns" in my e-mail box, when I read it I can easily fire off e-mails and facebook messages of congratulation or offering help, send flowers and in other ways reach out to people in a way that can carry the interaction a long way past Sunday morning.
For another example, I know the minister of a very small church that expects her to be in charge of everything. Members of her congregation say all the time "Oh, if you need something, please call" but then she has to call and hear their excuse and then call someone else, etc, etc. My suggestion was that when someone says "call me if you need anything," she should say "can I add you to my e-mail list?"
That way, if she needs an extra sitter for the choir concert or if the secretary is sick and she needs someone to run off and fold the newsletter, she sends out one email to the "Help the minister" list, people who can help respond, and she's done.
Don't know if she has implemented that.
But I think it is a good example of how not every suggestion for using technology has to be a big radical change, though I certainly suggested some big radical changes above.
(((Would a new role for pastors be to follow the tweets of members to get feedback the way a marketing departments follow some tweets?)))
Honestly, I'd say that if your church has a staff membership person, then they should probably have twitter searches already set up so on the rare occasion that someone tweets about the church they at least see it. Wouldn't you want to know what people were saying? I doubt people tweet about churches much, but when they do, would be nice if someone at the church saw that and the way to do it is with automatic searches, not reading every member's twitter feed.
Also, I had a bit of theological snark about a skit my church choir did recently and if I'd had a place to mention it to just the folks from my church, it probably wouldn't have ended up on twitter since I usually don't like to put things on my twitter feed that most of my friends won't understand.
(((I grew up as the son of a pastor and the time I had with my dad was limited enough as it was with him off at meetings and weddings and funerals all the time. How much time would I have had with him if he had to follow fb and twitter all the time in addition to these other traditional roles. Would my current church have to hire a third pastor just to minister to the tweets?))
Katy-the-Wise still does "sermon talkback" at her church. If it works the same way it did at her old church, you have a few minutes to get a cup of coffee, then Katy and interested congregants meet back in the sanctuary for an informal discussion of the sermon. If you have questions about the sermon, if you disagree or if you entirely didn't get it, you can ask the minister and everybody can talk about your question.
Some ministers view this practice as "let's attack the minister time." Some church members (i.e. jerks) try to use it that way. It never really worked with Katy because whatever you were talking about, Katy-the-Wise had thought about it more than you had and could issue an analytical smackdown if one was deserved. I don't just call her that because it sounds cool.**
Her sermon talkbacks ran between half and hour and an hour and I can honestly say that they were more spiritually helpful than anything I have ever done in Unitarian Universalism. I learned SO MUCH and developed SO MUCH spiritually from those conversations. I think back on them all the time and would love to attend a church that still has them because I got so much out of them. Indeed, when someone asks me a hard question on the Chaliceblog, I think of Katy, throw my shoulders back, and start typing. (OK, sometimes I go think about it for awhile. But the throwing shoulders back and typing occurs soon enough.)
Since my impression is that a lot of ministers feel like they are being given the third degree when talkback is done verbally, why not have an online sermon discussion running for a couple of weeks after each sermon? People with varying reactions to the sermon can show up and talk about it and clear up one another's confusions and then the minister can comment as necessary.
Depending on whether the minister wanted to provide more explanation or mostly let people who were on the right track discuss it out amongst themselves, that would take some time, but if the minister had less committee work (see above suggestions) then he/she would have time for that. And I think most ministers would RATHER have theological discussions than do committee work. My goodness, I hope they would.
That said, there are a fair number of ministers already who post their sermons on blogs that allow comments. Though some sermons get responses, Ms. Kitty's in particular seem to get discussion, "online sermon talkbacks" haven't really caught on. But then, we haven't advertised them as such. I think the idea still has potential when introduced to the congregation as a whole.
(((How would any of this make young adults feel there is anything other than RE?)))
By bringing them into decision-making that engages them as adults, by connecting them to other people in the church through discussions of things theological and not that can lead them to find things they have in common with other members, and by making church something you check into for a few minutes once a or twice a day as you're on your laptop in bed or while you're bored at work as opposed to something you do on Sundays then forget about.
(((At our church we have small group ministries aka chalice circles, so I suppose you could have a virtual chalice circle, but that doesn't sound fulfilling to me in the same way as a small group meeting during the week.)))
I certainly don't think we should get rid of in-person interactions like this one. That said, I like online discussions because I often formulate my opinions better in writing and much prefer the "read someone's three paragraphs, think about what they said for awhile as I do something else, write three paragraphs in response" approach to a verbal discussion, at least as far as this sort of thing is concerned. Also, I'm a night law student with a really irregular schedule. I've never seen a small group that was meeting at a time when I was sure I could consistently make it.
Anyway, I think we should have room for both approaches.
Indeed, I think online stuff works best when it is enhancing offline social interaction rather than replacing it. I'd love to see more inter-church online discussions of regular life stuff that could bring people together and help them realize how much they have in common and how much they will have to talk about when they see each other on Sunday.
In a side note, there's an RE class at my church that meets EVERY SPRING that I have wanted to join for THREE YEARS but that has never met on a night that my crazy-scheduled self could make it. If they offered it online, I would sign up in a second. As it is, I likely won't be able to take it until 2012.
(((I'm certainly out of the age group that Wikipedia defines for the natives, but I've also been one of those pioneers who built the technology that the natives live with, so I don't feel like I'm out of the loop, but perhaps I am.))
I was born on third base. You hit the triple. That said, I find this vision of a minimally hierarchical church that is focused on discussion and collaboration invigorating and exciting and very consistent with the way a church run by people who value what we say we value should work and I wanna go. I don't think you're out of the loop, you seem like I smart person to me and if you read this and hate all these possibilities and/or don't think they would work, well I'm just a layperson with no religious training who gave it a shot and goodness knows which one of us is right.
Time may tell, I suppose.
CC
*I'm writing this terrifyingly aware of how lots of UUs often think something is a good idea that Chalicechick considers a bad idea. But I can accept being outvoted. Being unilaterally vetoed by Myrtles is much rougher on me.
** Very early into my UUism career, Katy gave a sermon about the nature of vulgarity, how our notions of it have changed, what it means for us to have vulgar things and what it means to use vulgarity. At sermon talkback, Chalicechick raised her hand and when called on said "Course jocosity catches the crowd."
Katy finished "Shakespeare and I are often low-browed."
I regard that moment as the beginning of a beautiful friendship.
Monday, February 01, 2010
Who dat?
While I lived in New Orleans, there was a really hilarious sportscaster named Buddy Diliberto. Once, he announced that if the Saints ever went to the Superbowl, he would parade down Bourbon Street in a dress.
Diliberto died in 2005.
For the first time in 42 years, the Saints are headed to the Super Bowl, and few days ago, 80,000 people kept Bobby's promise. For a city famous for parades, the results aren't visually impressive. But it moved me to see so many having a great time doing something ridiculous for the team they love.
When I lived in New Orleans, I didn't like it. I felt like it was an insulated community and if you hadn't been born there, you didn't matter to anybody. I was honestly happy to leave. But between Hurricane Katrina and the Saints going to the Superbowl, I've come to realize that the place really got under my skin. New Orleans still matters to me.
The economy sucks, Haiti is still a mess and we don't have universal healthcare so it is probably stupid to care about football.
But I love a good triumph over adversity story.
(And I haven't forgotten Indiana stealing the Colts from Baltimore.)
Who dat!
CC
Diliberto died in 2005.
For the first time in 42 years, the Saints are headed to the Super Bowl, and few days ago, 80,000 people kept Bobby's promise. For a city famous for parades, the results aren't visually impressive. But it moved me to see so many having a great time doing something ridiculous for the team they love.
When I lived in New Orleans, I didn't like it. I felt like it was an insulated community and if you hadn't been born there, you didn't matter to anybody. I was honestly happy to leave. But between Hurricane Katrina and the Saints going to the Superbowl, I've come to realize that the place really got under my skin. New Orleans still matters to me.
The economy sucks, Haiti is still a mess and we don't have universal healthcare so it is probably stupid to care about football.
But I love a good triumph over adversity story.
(And I haven't forgotten Indiana stealing the Colts from Baltimore.)
Who dat!
CC
Thursday, January 21, 2010
If we were a peaceful country, would Haiti be more screwed?
Before the quake, Haiti's airport handled about three flights a day, some estimates are that its total capacity was around 30.
Now? 180 flights worth of food, supplies, peacekeepers and aid workers are landing per day.
How had this turnaround occurred? The Air Force has a whole bunch of engineers who are trained to rebuild airports for combat purposes, the theory being that they can rebuild the airport of a decimated city America has invaded so planes can be landed and the conquered city can more quickly become a military foothold.
Port-Au-Prince was a decimated city. So the Air Force sent its engineers there to rebuild the airport. Over 1000 planes landed in the first week.
On the radio in DC this weekend, there was a big fuss over the fact that the US Navy Hospital Ship Comfort had been getting maintenance and didn't get underway until Sunday. How dare they take so long? The military must be a bunch of jerks! One of my naval engineer readers (and I do have two at least sporadic ones) can answer this better than I can, but my guess is that getting a Navy hospital ship out of maintenance, fully staffed and on its way to Haiti in a few days is pretty good.
The ship is there now, and treating patients.
Another UU blogger asked recently if serving in the US Armed forces is honorable. I think that's a stupid question. To me it's obvious that pretty much any profession can be honorable or dishonorable depending on the way it is performed. Many would say that prostitution is not an honorable profession, for example, but as Heinlen put it, "It is possible that the precentage of honest and competent whores is higher than that of plumbers and much higher than that of lawyers. And enormously higher than that of professors.*"
Anyway, being a member of the Armed forces who is keeping the peace and distributing aid in Haiti? Honorable.
Sitting at home and sniping at the military as if they never do anything good? I'd say less so, even if you did write a check to a charity that bought supplies and put them on a plane that couldn't have landed without the US military's help.
There will always be UUs who want UUism to be a peace church and want the US to be a peaceful nation unprepared for war. But I have to say that when another country has a disaster and the Americans can fly in and make a bad time better, it makes me proud.
I don't fundamentally have an objection to cutting the defense budget, but we should be careful as we do so. Not every trade off is going to be one we want to make.
CC
who gets that, theoretically, the US could be a really peaceful nation that just keeps a giant disaster relief program around for an occiasion such as this one, but I don't think that's really going to happen. But my experience with pacifists has been that most of them might as well preface their idealistic visions with "If human nature were completely different then..." so I don't really expect much in the way of rational argument from them. Thus, it was probably pointless to bring that up.
*Sorry, Linguistfriend
Now? 180 flights worth of food, supplies, peacekeepers and aid workers are landing per day.
How had this turnaround occurred? The Air Force has a whole bunch of engineers who are trained to rebuild airports for combat purposes, the theory being that they can rebuild the airport of a decimated city America has invaded so planes can be landed and the conquered city can more quickly become a military foothold.
Port-Au-Prince was a decimated city. So the Air Force sent its engineers there to rebuild the airport. Over 1000 planes landed in the first week.
On the radio in DC this weekend, there was a big fuss over the fact that the US Navy Hospital Ship Comfort had been getting maintenance and didn't get underway until Sunday. How dare they take so long? The military must be a bunch of jerks! One of my naval engineer readers (and I do have two at least sporadic ones) can answer this better than I can, but my guess is that getting a Navy hospital ship out of maintenance, fully staffed and on its way to Haiti in a few days is pretty good.
The ship is there now, and treating patients.
Another UU blogger asked recently if serving in the US Armed forces is honorable. I think that's a stupid question. To me it's obvious that pretty much any profession can be honorable or dishonorable depending on the way it is performed. Many would say that prostitution is not an honorable profession, for example, but as Heinlen put it, "It is possible that the precentage of honest and competent whores is higher than that of plumbers and much higher than that of lawyers. And enormously higher than that of professors.*"
Anyway, being a member of the Armed forces who is keeping the peace and distributing aid in Haiti? Honorable.
Sitting at home and sniping at the military as if they never do anything good? I'd say less so, even if you did write a check to a charity that bought supplies and put them on a plane that couldn't have landed without the US military's help.
There will always be UUs who want UUism to be a peace church and want the US to be a peaceful nation unprepared for war. But I have to say that when another country has a disaster and the Americans can fly in and make a bad time better, it makes me proud.
I don't fundamentally have an objection to cutting the defense budget, but we should be careful as we do so. Not every trade off is going to be one we want to make.
CC
who gets that, theoretically, the US could be a really peaceful nation that just keeps a giant disaster relief program around for an occiasion such as this one, but I don't think that's really going to happen. But my experience with pacifists has been that most of them might as well preface their idealistic visions with "If human nature were completely different then..." so I don't really expect much in the way of rational argument from them. Thus, it was probably pointless to bring that up.
*Sorry, Linguistfriend
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
CC's lips are constantly chapped in the winter
Amazing how little stupid stuff can make one feel loved.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
RIP, Nancy Lee
I write about my life here and the people in it. So in a stupid way I feel like I'm just keeping you updated, because this isn't going to be long enough to count as really processing anything. I just found out that the ChaliceRelative's best friend died yesterday morning. Mary-who-Dances is visiting and we will go over this evening to hang out with the ChaliceRelative and talk things over.
Nancy Lee was the one I wrote about here. She was a really good person and the world is a darker, sadder place today.
CC
Nancy Lee was the one I wrote about here. She was a really good person and the world is a darker, sadder place today.
CC
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Stupid Questions, Stupid Answers
CC: "Who would win in a light saber battle, Walt Whitman or Ernest Hemingway?"
TheCSO: "Us all"
CC
TheCSO: "Us all"
CC
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Less stupid than Black Friday, less self-satisfied than "Buy Nothing Day"
Next day-after-Thanksgiving, I think I'll celebrate National Day of Listening.
CC
who knows some of y'all celebrate "Buy Nothing Day" and aren't evangelical jerks about it, but the majority...
CC
who knows some of y'all celebrate "Buy Nothing Day" and aren't evangelical jerks about it, but the majority...
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Does anybody ever think or Google things?
A breathless email was sent to a mailing list I was on this afternoon. The original writer of the email had found this picture.
I swear, the second I saw it, I said to myself "Oh, everybody's saluting but the President. The band must be playing 'Hail to the Chief"
Needless to say, the text of the email was all about how the sender didn't know specifically what was going on in the picture, but picture was taken on Veterans day and how by not saluting Obama must have been showing disrespect to the troops.
Needless to say, when I went looking for what was going on during the Veterans Day Ceremony that Obama attended, I found video taken from another angle.
Yep, Obama had taken the stage and "Hail to the Chief" was playing. Obama wasn't not saluting the troops. He was not saluting himself. Because saluting yourself is stupid.
And we wouldn't want to be stupid, would we?
Sigh.
CC
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Hanging out as a Spiritual Practice
Peter Morales has caused a mild stir in the YRUU room.
In an attempt to get UUs off our duffs and doing things, a cause I'm usually behind, he has made some rather grand statements about youth work in the latest issue of UU World.
He writes:
"I am convinced that we too often fail to recognize how much our children, youth, and young adults need to give. Hanging out is not a spiritual practice. Joining hands to work for something we care about is. Service is an essential part of faith development. We need to do so much more to engage the idealism and energy of our young people."
Err...Does he actually KNOW any UU youth? Has he ever tried to fit in YRUU amongst football practice, homework, play rehearsals and family responsibilities? I was at an RE training this weekend and someone else asked TogetherBeth what work our YRUUs did out in the community. She said something like:
"Well, we do the food drive at All Souls, of course, we have 40 youth going to that tomorrow. And we put together safe sex packets for Metro Teen Aids, and we entertain kids at the children's Inn at NIH and the whole church does volunteer work in the community during service week...well, we need to do more out in the community"
Actually, I think most people would say that's pretty good. And "out in the community" doesn't count the work trips to El Salvador and New Orleans our church does that are attended by lots of youth and the tons of fundraisers for various charities that our YRUU group does.
That aside, though, I still think the Reverend Morales is incorrect when he writes that "Hanging out is not a spiritual practice."
Well, actually, earlier in the article, he writes warmly "I remember one woman who had a passion for connecting with the elders of the church. She wanted them to feel connected and respected. She loved to hear their stories. What a gift she was to our church!" So perhaps what Reverend Morales meant was that "Hanging out is not a spiritual practice when youth do it" because it sounds suspiciously like hanging out is spiritual as all get out when you do it with the elders of the church.
The most useful conversation I've ever had with a YRUU happened as we were baking brownies. The second most useful conversation I've had with a YRUU happened BECAUSE Jana-who-creates and I were too lazy to go upstairs and get a folder. (If you follow that link, it's item four.)
Hanging out, in the way YRUUs do it, where you talk about how to deal when a friend says something homophobic, or how upset you were when you had your first car accident or how you've decided what you want to do when you grow up or how the kids at your old school were mean to you but you love your new school and now you're OK, is a vital, connective tissue that makes all of YRUU's heavy lifting possible. Hanging out is where we learn both the big important moments and the little stupid stuff of each other's lives. It's when we slow down from all the stuff we're doing (both charitable work and everyday things) and say to each other, "tell me about your day, because I want to know who you are."
I tend to think that when we connect with one another, we are connecting with a piece of that which is divine.
If that's not a spiritual practice, what is?
CC
In an attempt to get UUs off our duffs and doing things, a cause I'm usually behind, he has made some rather grand statements about youth work in the latest issue of UU World.
He writes:
"I am convinced that we too often fail to recognize how much our children, youth, and young adults need to give. Hanging out is not a spiritual practice. Joining hands to work for something we care about is. Service is an essential part of faith development. We need to do so much more to engage the idealism and energy of our young people."
Err...Does he actually KNOW any UU youth? Has he ever tried to fit in YRUU amongst football practice, homework, play rehearsals and family responsibilities? I was at an RE training this weekend and someone else asked TogetherBeth what work our YRUUs did out in the community. She said something like:
"Well, we do the food drive at All Souls, of course, we have 40 youth going to that tomorrow. And we put together safe sex packets for Metro Teen Aids, and we entertain kids at the children's Inn at NIH and the whole church does volunteer work in the community during service week...well, we need to do more out in the community"
Actually, I think most people would say that's pretty good. And "out in the community" doesn't count the work trips to El Salvador and New Orleans our church does that are attended by lots of youth and the tons of fundraisers for various charities that our YRUU group does.
That aside, though, I still think the Reverend Morales is incorrect when he writes that "Hanging out is not a spiritual practice."
Well, actually, earlier in the article, he writes warmly "I remember one woman who had a passion for connecting with the elders of the church. She wanted them to feel connected and respected. She loved to hear their stories. What a gift she was to our church!" So perhaps what Reverend Morales meant was that "Hanging out is not a spiritual practice when youth do it" because it sounds suspiciously like hanging out is spiritual as all get out when you do it with the elders of the church.
The most useful conversation I've ever had with a YRUU happened as we were baking brownies. The second most useful conversation I've had with a YRUU happened BECAUSE Jana-who-creates and I were too lazy to go upstairs and get a folder. (If you follow that link, it's item four.)
Hanging out, in the way YRUUs do it, where you talk about how to deal when a friend says something homophobic, or how upset you were when you had your first car accident or how you've decided what you want to do when you grow up or how the kids at your old school were mean to you but you love your new school and now you're OK, is a vital, connective tissue that makes all of YRUU's heavy lifting possible. Hanging out is where we learn both the big important moments and the little stupid stuff of each other's lives. It's when we slow down from all the stuff we're doing (both charitable work and everyday things) and say to each other, "tell me about your day, because I want to know who you are."
I tend to think that when we connect with one another, we are connecting with a piece of that which is divine.
If that's not a spiritual practice, what is?
CC
Monday, November 16, 2009
Sunday, November 08, 2009
Little Kid Religion
I remember word-for-word the conversation where I first heard of Unitarian Universalism.
"I don't go to church," my lab partner in my high school Oceanography class (a goth chick who has several freshmen believing that she was an actual vampire) said. "But my parents are Unitarians." She spoke the last word like it was the most tremendously uncool thing to ever be.
"What do Unitarians believe?" I asked.
"They believe that you can believe whatever you want."
"That's a stupid religion." I said.
"No kidding"
And our conversation moved on to other matters, none of them relating to Oceanography.
As many times as I've corrected UUs of various ages (mercifully skewing towards kids) on the specifics of refining belief through reason, I can totally see why "you can believe whatever you want" is a little kid version of UUism.
Similarly, the little kid version of Christianity I grew up with was along the lines of "Be good and do good stuff and you will go to heaven. Pray and God will give you stuff. Take care of the poor because Jesus said to."*
I took some theology classes and developed a more sophisticated understanding of Christianity before I rejected it as a spiritual path, but I found those little kid tenets to be quite tenacious as far as my own thinking about these matters went and part of me still sees Christianity as a religion very focused on who gets what from God.
This line of thought has me really glad that I'm a YRUU advisor. We didn't have sunday school classes for teenagers when I was a Presbyterian teenager because we didn't have any teenagers who wanted to attend except me. (And this was at a decently-sized church in the middle of DC). As I've mentioned, the multi-church youth group I was in was all about keeping us from having sex with each other and not so much about anything else. I remember two lock-ins, a charades game, a retreat, a trip to the movies ("Groundhog Day") and a stream cleanup. There had to have been more in four years of high school but that's literally all I remember doing.
Also, there was one discussion where we were supposed to talk about our hero and lots of kids said "my mom" and lots of kids said "God" and Teenage CC said "Katharine Hepburn."
So yeah, there wasn't much moving on to becoming a mature Christian adult in there. It's not a big shock that I didn't stay.
Conversely, Jana-who-Creates grew up in Atlanta and tells lots of stories of driving across a state or two to go to a youth con and how YRUU cons were really where she fit in. She grew up getting Unitarian Universalism on a deep level because there were people who wanted to teach it to her. And she met Richard Simmons.
Here's hoping that the youth I know and the youth you know have a better grasp of the faith they are growing up in than I did and that like YRUU did for JwC it truly becomes a place where youth can fit and where they truly get what their religion tries to teach.
CC
*It bears mentioning that not all kids get the little kid version. LittleCSO had so many pointed questions about doctrine that his Sunday School teacher eventually had him meet with the minister, who told him straight out that if he didn't believe X, Y and Z then he wasn't a Lutheran. So theCSO stopped going to church as he was not a Lutheran. The actual truth of this story might be slightly less awesomely precocious, but that's how he tells it.
"I don't go to church," my lab partner in my high school Oceanography class (a goth chick who has several freshmen believing that she was an actual vampire) said. "But my parents are Unitarians." She spoke the last word like it was the most tremendously uncool thing to ever be.
"What do Unitarians believe?" I asked.
"They believe that you can believe whatever you want."
"That's a stupid religion." I said.
"No kidding"
And our conversation moved on to other matters, none of them relating to Oceanography.
As many times as I've corrected UUs of various ages (mercifully skewing towards kids) on the specifics of refining belief through reason, I can totally see why "you can believe whatever you want" is a little kid version of UUism.
Similarly, the little kid version of Christianity I grew up with was along the lines of "Be good and do good stuff and you will go to heaven. Pray and God will give you stuff. Take care of the poor because Jesus said to."*
I took some theology classes and developed a more sophisticated understanding of Christianity before I rejected it as a spiritual path, but I found those little kid tenets to be quite tenacious as far as my own thinking about these matters went and part of me still sees Christianity as a religion very focused on who gets what from God.
This line of thought has me really glad that I'm a YRUU advisor. We didn't have sunday school classes for teenagers when I was a Presbyterian teenager because we didn't have any teenagers who wanted to attend except me. (And this was at a decently-sized church in the middle of DC). As I've mentioned, the multi-church youth group I was in was all about keeping us from having sex with each other and not so much about anything else. I remember two lock-ins, a charades game, a retreat, a trip to the movies ("Groundhog Day") and a stream cleanup. There had to have been more in four years of high school but that's literally all I remember doing.
Also, there was one discussion where we were supposed to talk about our hero and lots of kids said "my mom" and lots of kids said "God" and Teenage CC said "Katharine Hepburn."
So yeah, there wasn't much moving on to becoming a mature Christian adult in there. It's not a big shock that I didn't stay.
Conversely, Jana-who-Creates grew up in Atlanta and tells lots of stories of driving across a state or two to go to a youth con and how YRUU cons were really where she fit in. She grew up getting Unitarian Universalism on a deep level because there were people who wanted to teach it to her. And she met Richard Simmons.
Here's hoping that the youth I know and the youth you know have a better grasp of the faith they are growing up in than I did and that like YRUU did for JwC it truly becomes a place where youth can fit and where they truly get what their religion tries to teach.
CC
*It bears mentioning that not all kids get the little kid version. LittleCSO had so many pointed questions about doctrine that his Sunday School teacher eventually had him meet with the minister, who told him straight out that if he didn't believe X, Y and Z then he wasn't a Lutheran. So theCSO stopped going to church as he was not a Lutheran. The actual truth of this story might be slightly less awesomely precocious, but that's how he tells it.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
CC realizes the obvious- last post on ACORN for awhile, I swear
Question: If the ACORN employees at every single office O'Keefe and Giles visited had taken them seriously and those kids had hours of footage of themselves getting kicked out of a dozen ACORN offices, what would they have?
Answer: They would have footage that could be edited into "evidence" that ACORN kicks out white people who come to ACORN looking for help. As long as O'Keefe and Giles edited out the images of what they were wearing and never released all of their tapes, ACORN would be able to claim that they wanted help buying a whorehouse, but O'Keefe and Giles could just say that was a crazy lie on ACORN's part and O'Keefe and Giles's fans would believe them much as many of them continue to believe in that ACORN employee's non-existent dead ex-husband.
There would be videos all over the internet of angry looking ACORN employees throwing them out and threatening to call the police if they didn't stop trespassing, and O'Keefe and Giles could have shown up on Fox and Friends in their Sunday best, denying those crazy rumors that they came dressed as a Pimp and Ho. Giles could call it part of the same sexism of the left that Sarah Palin faced and O'Keefe could have said that he wore the same suit he was wearing today. (And just not mentioned the big hat and fur coat.) I mean, O'Keefe and Giles lie in the video about ACORN's funding and have repeatedly lied to the press*.
No matter what the ACORN employees did, the moment O'Keefe and Giles stepped into their first ACORN office, ACORN was getting defunded.
I never said those kids were stupid.
CC
*They likely lied under the reasonable assumption that if an ACORN office had called the police, the police wouldn't take a report since nothing illegal had actually occurred. Let the record show that for once CC is pleased at some police overzealousness since the image of the Philly PD's police report makes the point far more clearly that ACORN's repeated requests that O'Keefe and Giles release the tapes from Philly and some of the other offices they visited where they made a huge fuss as they were being thrown out.
Answer: They would have footage that could be edited into "evidence" that ACORN kicks out white people who come to ACORN looking for help. As long as O'Keefe and Giles edited out the images of what they were wearing and never released all of their tapes, ACORN would be able to claim that they wanted help buying a whorehouse, but O'Keefe and Giles could just say that was a crazy lie on ACORN's part and O'Keefe and Giles's fans would believe them much as many of them continue to believe in that ACORN employee's non-existent dead ex-husband.
There would be videos all over the internet of angry looking ACORN employees throwing them out and threatening to call the police if they didn't stop trespassing, and O'Keefe and Giles could have shown up on Fox and Friends in their Sunday best, denying those crazy rumors that they came dressed as a Pimp and Ho. Giles could call it part of the same sexism of the left that Sarah Palin faced and O'Keefe could have said that he wore the same suit he was wearing today. (And just not mentioned the big hat and fur coat.) I mean, O'Keefe and Giles lie in the video about ACORN's funding and have repeatedly lied to the press*.
No matter what the ACORN employees did, the moment O'Keefe and Giles stepped into their first ACORN office, ACORN was getting defunded.
I never said those kids were stupid.
CC
*They likely lied under the reasonable assumption that if an ACORN office had called the police, the police wouldn't take a report since nothing illegal had actually occurred. Let the record show that for once CC is pleased at some police overzealousness since the image of the Philly PD's police report makes the point far more clearly that ACORN's repeated requests that O'Keefe and Giles release the tapes from Philly and some of the other offices they visited where they made a huge fuss as they were being thrown out.
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
Link on Transracial Adoption and why I disagree with it.
A poster named "AdoptAuthor" gave me a link to this website. I read it with interest, but I don't agree with almost any of it. A basic premise of several of the essays is that white people are so scared of being called "racist" that they adopt kids of other colors as a built in defense against the charge. Frankly, whatever you do in this culture and whatever you believe, SOMEBODY'S going to call you racist* and while nobody likes to be called racist more than they like to be called "stupid" or any other insulting term, I think most people are disinclined to do something as expensive and life-changing as adoption to defend themselves against a bit of namecalling that they will almost certainly get anyway.
Secondly, a basic premise of the site is that white people adopt kids from other countries because the white people want to feel good, the white people want to not be racists, the white people want a "China Doll." And yes, white people adopt because doing so gives them cultural dominion. As far as I can tell, nobody at TransracialAbductees.com even considers the possibility that white people adopt because they want a child to love and raise and care for.
I'm assuming that under this logic people like my husband and me who are primarily interested in another trait (nerdiness) and are happy with either a white kid or a kid of another race, much like we would be happy with either a gay kid or a straight kid, don't exist at all.
I get that there are a lot of snotty white people out there, I've met some of them. And I don't doubt that transracial adoption is difficult for the children being raised in a culture that may or may not fully accept them. At the same time, lots of people BORN in to a culture don't fit well and go through that and I don't think the parents are putting the kids through it out of selfishness, or at least not selfishness alone.
Also, as far as I can tell, the site never even addresses the question "Don't orphanages in third world countries pretty much suck? If a family that can afford good food, medical bills, an education, etc for a kid can adopt a kid out of an orphanage, isn't that a good thing, all things considered?" I don't doubt that good arguments can be made against this opinion, but someplace on the site somebody should make them rather than simply mocking those who ask the question.
For the record, adopting from another country has never been the plan. We were planning to foster first, for one thing. For another, we aren't looking for a baby and there are plenty of older kids here who need homes in America. One of the minor nice things about looking into being a foster parent then adopting is that nobody really argues that the child would be better off in the foster system. They might argue that you're a white imperialist anyway, but at least no one seems to think the kid would be better off where they were before.
As for other cultural issues, we'd do our best. It's easier with some cultures than others. My entire church is rented out every Saturday morning to a Japanese school where the children of immigrants and diplomats who attend American school five days a week spend Saturday mornings learning their native language and learning about their native culture. Something like that would be no problem.
Where there isn't an organized school, the way to go about it would depend far more on how old the kid is and what the kid wants to do. I would be a little bummed if the child wanted to attend a different church, but I would make it happen as I recognize that being able to make one's own religious choices is a part of growing up and worshiping with people is a wonderful way to feel connected to them.
It's maybe a cop-out to say that given that we are thinking of adopting a kid who is a pre-teen or young teenager, so we can leave a lot of this up to them, but that's pretty much where I stand on it. Or, to put the ball squarely in my race's court, if we adopt a white kid from North Carolina or southern Virginia, we won't cry if they end up a NASCAR-loving southern Baptist, but we aren't forcing grits on anyone who doesn't want to eat them.
Broccoli, maybe, but not grits.
CC
who suspects that years from now, she will reread this post and mock its naive spirit, but it is representative of her thinking right now.
* If you don't believe in affirmative action, then you're a racist because you don't want to atone for white people's misdeeds toward black people. If you do, then you're a racist because you think black kids can't cut it against white kids without affirmative action. As far as I can tell the "you're a racist because you don't want to help people of other races" "No, YOU'RE the racist because you think people of other races need your help" debate goes on with almost any political issue at all related to race. Sometimes in far more sophisticated terms, but that still seems like the essence.
Secondly, a basic premise of the site is that white people adopt kids from other countries because the white people want to feel good, the white people want to not be racists, the white people want a "China Doll." And yes, white people adopt because doing so gives them cultural dominion. As far as I can tell, nobody at TransracialAbductees.com even considers the possibility that white people adopt because they want a child to love and raise and care for.
I'm assuming that under this logic people like my husband and me who are primarily interested in another trait (nerdiness) and are happy with either a white kid or a kid of another race, much like we would be happy with either a gay kid or a straight kid, don't exist at all.
I get that there are a lot of snotty white people out there, I've met some of them. And I don't doubt that transracial adoption is difficult for the children being raised in a culture that may or may not fully accept them. At the same time, lots of people BORN in to a culture don't fit well and go through that and I don't think the parents are putting the kids through it out of selfishness, or at least not selfishness alone.
Also, as far as I can tell, the site never even addresses the question "Don't orphanages in third world countries pretty much suck? If a family that can afford good food, medical bills, an education, etc for a kid can adopt a kid out of an orphanage, isn't that a good thing, all things considered?" I don't doubt that good arguments can be made against this opinion, but someplace on the site somebody should make them rather than simply mocking those who ask the question.
For the record, adopting from another country has never been the plan. We were planning to foster first, for one thing. For another, we aren't looking for a baby and there are plenty of older kids here who need homes in America. One of the minor nice things about looking into being a foster parent then adopting is that nobody really argues that the child would be better off in the foster system. They might argue that you're a white imperialist anyway, but at least no one seems to think the kid would be better off where they were before.
As for other cultural issues, we'd do our best. It's easier with some cultures than others. My entire church is rented out every Saturday morning to a Japanese school where the children of immigrants and diplomats who attend American school five days a week spend Saturday mornings learning their native language and learning about their native culture. Something like that would be no problem.
Where there isn't an organized school, the way to go about it would depend far more on how old the kid is and what the kid wants to do. I would be a little bummed if the child wanted to attend a different church, but I would make it happen as I recognize that being able to make one's own religious choices is a part of growing up and worshiping with people is a wonderful way to feel connected to them.
It's maybe a cop-out to say that given that we are thinking of adopting a kid who is a pre-teen or young teenager, so we can leave a lot of this up to them, but that's pretty much where I stand on it. Or, to put the ball squarely in my race's court, if we adopt a white kid from North Carolina or southern Virginia, we won't cry if they end up a NASCAR-loving southern Baptist, but we aren't forcing grits on anyone who doesn't want to eat them.
Broccoli, maybe, but not grits.
CC
who suspects that years from now, she will reread this post and mock its naive spirit, but it is representative of her thinking right now.
* If you don't believe in affirmative action, then you're a racist because you don't want to atone for white people's misdeeds toward black people. If you do, then you're a racist because you think black kids can't cut it against white kids without affirmative action. As far as I can tell the "you're a racist because you don't want to help people of other races" "No, YOU'RE the racist because you think people of other races need your help" debate goes on with almost any political issue at all related to race. Sometimes in far more sophisticated terms, but that still seems like the essence.
Saturday, September 05, 2009
One more on the UU World ads
"Hey ZombieKid?"
"Yeah?"
"C'mere"
My best friend's ten year old reluctantly leaves his comic book behind and comes over to the couch where I'm lounging.
"Wha-at?" He says in that little kid way.
"Take a look at this," I say, and thrust the now-infamous UU world ad under his nose.
He reads it carefully. I love this child.
"Do you see why people might have a problem with that ad?" I ask.
"Because it makes people who believe in God sound stupid."
"Is that wrong?"
"Yes"
"Why?"
"I dunno. Because it is. People should be able to believe what they want without other people being mean about it."
"Why?"
ZombieKid is a bit lost for an answer as he senses that answering "because being mean to other people because of what they believe is wrong" will just lead to another "why?" and that's the best he can do. His mother intervenes on his behalf with a speech about how our values state that we're supposed to be respectful of people who believe things that are different and that UUs try our best to live with those values. Then she uses the seven principles as a creed. But I love her anyway.
We went into a discussion of the quotes that we thought were OK (Katharine Hepburn is pretty clearly just speaking for herself) and the ones that were problems (Primarily Darrow's and Dawkins').
So yeah, this kid is ten and he might not be able to explain his issues with that ad with the eloquance that Berry's Mom has, but he still gets it.
Sigh.
CC
"Yeah?"
"C'mere"
My best friend's ten year old reluctantly leaves his comic book behind and comes over to the couch where I'm lounging.
"Wha-at?" He says in that little kid way.
"Take a look at this," I say, and thrust the now-infamous UU world ad under his nose.
He reads it carefully. I love this child.
"Do you see why people might have a problem with that ad?" I ask.
"Because it makes people who believe in God sound stupid."
"Is that wrong?"
"Yes"
"Why?"
"I dunno. Because it is. People should be able to believe what they want without other people being mean about it."
"Why?"
ZombieKid is a bit lost for an answer as he senses that answering "because being mean to other people because of what they believe is wrong" will just lead to another "why?" and that's the best he can do. His mother intervenes on his behalf with a speech about how our values state that we're supposed to be respectful of people who believe things that are different and that UUs try our best to live with those values. Then she uses the seven principles as a creed. But I love her anyway.
We went into a discussion of the quotes that we thought were OK (Katharine Hepburn is pretty clearly just speaking for herself) and the ones that were problems (Primarily Darrow's and Dawkins').
So yeah, this kid is ten and he might not be able to explain his issues with that ad with the eloquance that Berry's Mom has, but he still gets it.
Sigh.
CC
Thursday, August 27, 2009
I'm aware that this falls into the category of "stupid rich people stuff"
But I am charmed by this story of the owner of Papa John's Pizza tracking down the Chevy Camaro he sold when he was just starting out and paying the current owner $250,000 for it.
CC
CC
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Things could be worse.
As much as I think the guidelines I try to set for Chaliceblog comments are pretty basic and obvious, and as clear as I feel I've made them, people do violate them sometimes.
Yet commenting situation could be far, far, worse around here and I know it.
Or, as the guy who draws XKCD puts it, "the internet has always had loud dumb people, but I've never seen anything quite as bad as the people who comment on YouTube videos."
Or to put that another way:
A review of the posting guidelines
-Try to stay on topic. If you must digress, make it an interesting digression. Your political views, beefs with other commenters, etc, etc, are not really all that interesting.
-You can be insulting, you can be pointless, but try not to be both in the same comment.
-Puns about the WVC are really freaking old and need to stay out of serious threads.
(No, I'm not arguing about what's a serious thread with you. I'm telling you that making a pun about the word verification code makes it very likely that I will at least consider kicking it and the more serious the thread is the more likely I am to kick it.)
-Don't make fun of anything in the DSM or accuse other people, jokingly or otherwise, of having conditions in the DSM. Maybe that's just a pet peeve of mine, but there are millions of blogs where you don't have to pay any attention to my pet peeves. If you can't follow this, go find one.
-We don't have a problem with ethnic slurs here or anything like that, but in general, comments that insult large groups of people who share beliefs, political affiliations, etc. (e.g. "Christians," "Atheists," "Republicans") are highly frowned upon.
Don't want your comments kicked? Act like you're at a party talking to your friends. When you're at a party, do you repeatedly interrupt serious conversations with puns that no one gives any sign of finding amusing? Do you randomly insult large groups of people, assuming that if anyone from any of these groups is offended or hurt that it's their problem? Do you insult someone who is trying to talk to someone else and/or tell people they are stupid for disagreeing with you because you are so obviously correct? Do you come up to other people's conversations and change the subject to something you find more interesting?
If so, that's why you don't get invited to many parties.
I'm glad I don't have most of the problems that the girls in the video have, but my standards for reasoned discourse are still higher. The CB used to be a fun party. I'd like to get it back there.
CC
Yet commenting situation could be far, far, worse around here and I know it.
Or, as the guy who draws XKCD puts it, "the internet has always had loud dumb people, but I've never seen anything quite as bad as the people who comment on YouTube videos."
Or to put that another way:
A review of the posting guidelines
-Try to stay on topic. If you must digress, make it an interesting digression. Your political views, beefs with other commenters, etc, etc, are not really all that interesting.
-You can be insulting, you can be pointless, but try not to be both in the same comment.
-Puns about the WVC are really freaking old and need to stay out of serious threads.
(No, I'm not arguing about what's a serious thread with you. I'm telling you that making a pun about the word verification code makes it very likely that I will at least consider kicking it and the more serious the thread is the more likely I am to kick it.)
-Don't make fun of anything in the DSM or accuse other people, jokingly or otherwise, of having conditions in the DSM. Maybe that's just a pet peeve of mine, but there are millions of blogs where you don't have to pay any attention to my pet peeves. If you can't follow this, go find one.
-We don't have a problem with ethnic slurs here or anything like that, but in general, comments that insult large groups of people who share beliefs, political affiliations, etc. (e.g. "Christians," "Atheists," "Republicans") are highly frowned upon.
Don't want your comments kicked? Act like you're at a party talking to your friends. When you're at a party, do you repeatedly interrupt serious conversations with puns that no one gives any sign of finding amusing? Do you randomly insult large groups of people, assuming that if anyone from any of these groups is offended or hurt that it's their problem? Do you insult someone who is trying to talk to someone else and/or tell people they are stupid for disagreeing with you because you are so obviously correct? Do you come up to other people's conversations and change the subject to something you find more interesting?
If so, that's why you don't get invited to many parties.
I'm glad I don't have most of the problems that the girls in the video have, but my standards for reasoned discourse are still higher. The CB used to be a fun party. I'd like to get it back there.
CC
Thursday, July 09, 2009
No Borat for CC, no Bruno either
Ok, to be honest, I really hated the IDEA of Borat and what clips I saw of him humiliating his easy, easy targets. (Let's embarrass some rednecks! That's new! Oh, nobody EVER makes fun of southern frat boys. Let's do that. And poor people in Eastern Europe, let's make them look REALLY stupid. Hil-LAR-ious!)
I knew from the reviews, even the positive ones, that I didn't have the stomach for that movie. But I liked Sacha Baron Cohen just fine in "Sweeney Todd" and had hopes that for his next movie making fun of poor people might get old and "Bruno" might find himself in a Whole Foods surrounded by people whom his middle class audience wasn't quite so ready to laugh at automatically.
Judging by this,it's not happening and Baron Cohen is right back to humilating stage mothers, evangelical christians and, of course, rednecks in multiple settings.
Sigh.
CC
I knew from the reviews, even the positive ones, that I didn't have the stomach for that movie. But I liked Sacha Baron Cohen just fine in "Sweeney Todd" and had hopes that for his next movie making fun of poor people might get old and "Bruno" might find himself in a Whole Foods surrounded by people whom his middle class audience wasn't quite so ready to laugh at automatically.
Judging by this,it's not happening and Baron Cohen is right back to humilating stage mothers, evangelical christians and, of course, rednecks in multiple settings.
Sigh.
CC
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)