Eight things about CC

Mom to the Left tagged me a long time ago and I was like "hmmm, that's cool, I should write that."

And then I forgot.

But Jess reminded me yesterday.

1. I achieved my career dreams once and it was a terrible experience. I wanted to be a reporter for a long time and finally landed a reporting job when I was several years out of college. I sucked at it, my boss was incredibly mean, which made me suck at it more, I lived in this crappy little town on $18,000 a year and my boss had decreed I wasn't supposed to have friends. I'm hoping law works out a little better for me.

2. I once had a pleasing romantic experience with Sophie B. Hawkins' Whaler album playing in the background and I now find that album calms me down and centers me when I need it.

3. I'm rereading Robertson Davies' The Manticore and discovering I really didn't understand it the first few times I read it.

4. A few days after I got in to Georgetown Law, my husband said we should go buy a Nintendo Wii as a celebration of my achievement. I thought it was one of those things where a present for me is really a present for him, but I love the Wii and I play it all the time. Wii golf has made me want to learn to play real golf.

5. I love elephants and have several drawings and prints of them in whimsical situations in my house, though I really don't want to be one of those people who has a favorite animal and has stuff with that animal on it everywhere. But I do like my elephant art. My favorite is in my library. The CSO called up the artist, told him what he wanted, and the artist made it for me. I will put up a picture later.

6. The CSO and I were against having kids, and it was questionable whether I could, but we may reconsider after law school. We have names picked out and thinking about those names gives me a weird rush of maternal oomph. I blame biology, but it's an interesting effect.

7. I am a minimally-accomplished knitter and sometimes make lumpy little scarves and hats for dear friends.

8. I really feel that I could live on nectarines if it were necessary.

CC

Wow.

The post I took down

I had written another post about the Brown Bag discussion pointing to revrose.com's post on the subject and complaining about the tone that people seem to feel the need to take.

I don't get why Ivy-League educated folks seem to think that slams on people's intelligence are a crucial part of anti-oppression conversations, for example.

But a few people commented, and a few more emailed, that I was being oversensitive and unreasonable, and that Rev Rose hadn't said what I thought she had.

And in this case, I decided that:

A. 50 Million Elvis fans might not all be wrong. If a decent number of people felt I was misinterpreting the post, then maybe they were right.

B. My billable hours cannot take another Brown Bag conversation. I cannot or at least should not goof off and write a bunch of blog posts right now. I have lots of law stuff to do, and a GA panel to prepare for.

C. My psyche cannot take any more nasty emails because I said something somebody doesn't like in the Brown Bag conversation. Which lend credence to the theory that I'm oversensitive because everyone knows you shouldn't take mean things people say on the internet seriously, but they still bother me.

So I took it down and put up "Oh, forget it," in its place.

On some level, I still think I interpreted RevRose correctly and her link to the history of the Brown Bag test, which certainly we couldn't possibly know about and still disagree, was as condescending as I initially took it.

But I really don't want to start this whole thing over again.

So I produce cuckoo clocks and fine chocolates. I'm Switzerland.

You kids have fun.

CC

This is a good list.

As a response to Maxim's 100 Hottest Women list (Lindsey Lohan won? Really?), AfterEllen.com has put together a list of Women who make lesbians hot.

And it's a great list.

Now, they still chose, I believe exclusively, models and actresses. That's too bad. Because fighting for equal rights in Congress is sexy. Writing a brilliant novel is sexy. Scientific discoveries, creating art, leading a corporation? Sexy, sexy, sexy.

But that is a lot to ask from a Hottest 100 list compiled on the internet.

CC

Oh, forget it...

I'm cranky for some reason I guess.


CC

Check out the huge freaking rainstorm

It caused a power outage that I really didn't need, but it's still beautiful.

CC
Hoping the power comes back on because she has serious stuff to do.

GA is only a week away.

Why does it never seem real until I get plane tickets?

CC

Cultural Masochism and Identity Politics.

The Lively Tradition quotes a lengthy section from a blog post about how much modern society sucks and how alienated we are from one another, etc, etc and soforth.

Robertson Davies says this kind of masochism is a Canadian thing, but UUs love it to.

I don't get it. To pull a quote from the peice:

It's just truculent and wilful to want to read a book, or watch a debate, when real pros have already done that so much better than we can, and are happy to give us really excellent opinions and judgments. Why would anyone want to hear views about the surge, or Social Security, from some friend who's not at all famous, badly lit, unrehearsed, with home-made makeup - or none! - and with some random office or restaurant background and dirty dishes on the table?

Does anyone here actually lack for opportunities to do this? Not to put to fine a point on it, but doesn't umm... the Lively Tradition itself frequently feature political commentary? Because my understanding is that the man who writes it is not a professional pundit.

My friends seemingly can't wait to tell me their political opinions. And the nice thing about living now is that my ownership of a vagina is not necessarily an impediment to my opinions being taken seriously, which it would have been at the time this article romanticizes.

The source article is all about "identity politics" and written by one of those people who has conveniently forgotten that until roughly the Eisenhower administration presidential candidates when not the president himself were chosen in back rooms. Apparently a hundred and fifty years of old white rich guys choosing each other doesn't count as identity politics.

The idea that a representative from an agricultural area will understand farmers and look after them, and a representative from an urban area will do the same for urban dwellers is not a new one, indeed, it's the basic theory the founding fathers had when they designed congress the way they did.

I find this post, and indeed this entire genre of posts, puzzling. I grew up in the age of Nintendo and my favorite childhood toys were these weird little animal figurines my mom brought back from mexico and a stuffed animal of a horse my dad bought me when I was five. I really don't think kids, or adults for that matter, are any less imaginative than they used to be.

Judging by, oh, the internet, creativity and communication are alive and well.

To me, it's sort of ridiculous. It invites parody "Two hundred years ago, we had a family doctor who made housecalls who could medicate our problems with leeches. Now we have the cold indignity of MEDICINES to ease our pains instead!"

Goodness, y'all....

So, what's the appeal of these articles by old white guys (aren't they all by old white guys) about how great life was a few generations ago?

I see it as life today offers us extra choices. If making music with your friends, community theater, or talking politics is your thing, lots of people do those things and people who really love those things are easier to find than they've ever been.

But if it isn't your thing, you have other stuff that you can do.

I don't enjoy making music. A nightly singalong with my family sounds like hell for me. Playing ball in the park on more than an occiasional basis wouldn't be much better.

Is it so wrong that I and other people who feel the same way have other options for amusing ourselves?

CC
who in writing this has indirectly defended Paul Krugman. Grr.

Am I the only one who hasn't gotten her GA program yet?

Just askin'

Help a modernist out?

Does postmodern science exist?

The closest I can come to an example would be chaos theory, and that's not terribly close.

I can't really imagine a postmodern approach to the scientific method, after all.

Would someone clue me in?

Thankee,

CC

CC and Revsparker say a quick hello

Chalicechick: Whaddup?
RevSparker: you ask good questions
Chalicechick: I try
RevSparker: i like that we're having the conversation
Chalicechick: Me too. I think there's a lot of tension about this stuff for reasons I don't completely understand. Not that racism isn't by its nature a tense subject culturally all around
RevSparker: remember, I've just taught a class completely deconstructing the modernist and racist roots of our tradition
ChaliceChick: I didn't remember.
RevSparker: So I have a lot of "back story"...That's what I did on sabbatical: a whole class on the Journey Toward Wholeness.
ChaliceChick: I see. I think everybody brings their own backstory to such discussions.
RevSparker: I got really convinced as we read through all the materials, essays, etc, that much of what we hold dear is part and parcel of our roots as a snobby, powerful, and often oppressive group, so I am trying to address that without being a total ass to people
ChaliceChick: I'd be interested in a post about post-modernism and reason, though I might argue with it.
RevSparker: if I can find the time... I'm not a true post modernist, but I am a critic of modernity.
ChaliceChick: Got it. Well, no pressure, but I, for one, am interested
RevSparker: The problem with so much of what we call "reason" is that it is predicated on an assumption of clear binaries where one side is of more value than the other: reason/intuition being one or reason/experience
ChaliceChick: I don't remember if I've ever directly told you that my dad is schizophrenic, but growing up like that is an excellent way to grow up to be a modernist.
RevSparker: wow. I bet
ChaliceChick: As you know, backstory all around.
RevSparker: yup
ChaliceChick: But yeah, though that's my reflex, I am trying to keep an open mind.
RevSparker: So for me, the way people defend rationality can seem a lot like a defense against acknowledging that our motives, words, etc. can be and often are racist...and that people experience them that way.
ChaliceChick: I don't think that's it. I think that's sometimes it, but I really don't see most of the people in this discussion that way.
RevSparker: We love to say "we didn't intend to be racist"but what about the people who experienced it that way?
I think we need to balance both.
ChaliceChick: It's so hard. I've observed some people attribute everything (Va tech shootings, for example) to racism, while I attribute everything to mental illness (Kramer's racist meltdown, for example.)
RevSparker: It seemed reasonable to me that changing the name of a lunch discussion was not going too far.
ChaliceChick: As I said, it really wasn't, but I think UUs are really sensitive to "This is racist because we say so."
RevSparker: Yes, but in my experience, Starr King isn't very often the one doing that. JTW and the Crossroads trainings did that. SKSM is the only place I see trying something different. Everybody else just gave up and said "this won't work."
ChaliceChick: I've heard people of color make fun of whites for being so scared of being called racist.
But at the same time, it's really disquieting to feel like at any moment you could be accused of something truly terrible and there's no way to defend yourself.
RevSparker: Yes, it's scary... but we are supposed to be brave
ChaliceChick: We are?
RevSparker: Trying to remember the words of Rank by Rank...something about brave...
RevSparker: The hardest thing for white people, I think, is to admit that yes, indeed, we are impure, screwed up, messy, imperfect, and sometimes stupid. And so is everybody else. I think it's part of how white supremacy shows up as fear instead of anger/rage/hatred.
ChaliceChick: Yeah. I can see that.
RevSparker: So part of what I am secretly wishing for is people to say, "Wow. I really did just assume my right to say 'brown bag' was more important than someone else's feelings and maybe I did that because I was scared or uncomfortable."
Now you know why I am passionate...I have an agenda...that will probably never happen
ChaliceChick: I honestly don't think that aspect was fear. I think I heard it and thought "boat people," and someone else thought of when he was called a racist for not giving a guy on the street money, and another person thought about getting yelled at for saying "a chink in the armor."
I think that people don't want to hurt each other's feelings and I think when the message is "Hey, did you know X and Y about the history of this?" it's one thing, but when it's "This is racist!" it's another.
RevSparker: But isn't that a kind of fear of being mistaken for a racist?
ChaliceChick: I don't know. In me, it feels like irritation.
RevSparker: Have you read Rebecca Parker's book of essays?
ChaliceChick: Which one?
RevSparker: Blessing the World
ChaliceChick: No, I haven't. I will keep an eye out for it.
RevSparker: She does a good job of talking about the way whiteness is constructed to make us fear being wrong and how we are taught to "not know" things that interrupt the way the world works. And then to defend why we didn't know or how we shouldn't have needed to know or how what we didn't know is actually not true
It's very compassionate.
ChaliceChick: Honestly, at this point, I am somewhat conditioned to believe that people of other races are oversenstive. I was kept waiting in a tire place on Monday, a black man came in soon after me and was kept waiting too. I found myself making a point of complaining about the staff ignoring me so he would know it wasn't just him. I don't think this is a wonderful way to be, but it's become my reflex because I'm so used to the assumption of racism in UU circles.
RevSparker: But that assumption of oversensitivity is a stereotype.
ChaliceChick: I know.
RevSparker: So the cycle just repeats in a new way... it reminds me of the AIDS virus, always changing just enough to avoid our attempts to cure it.
ChaliceChick: I totally get that. If it helps, I'm similarly nervous around white people whom I know are into Anti-racism.
RevSparker: The way AR/AO has been done in the UUA has been harmful at times and we are seeing the result of that. And yet, it was a start. by well-intentioned people trying to do something good.
ChaliceChick: I know.
RevSparker: But we dismiss them so easily because we didn't like what happened and because anti-oppression work is scary as hell.
ChaliceChick: OK, come to think of it, I don't know.
RevSparker: From my perspective, they made one HUGE mistake: they borrowed materials from other faiths and those materials were based in a Calvinistic "original sin" mentality. And yet, lots of people had life changing experiences in spite of that.
ChaliceChick: those materials were based in a Calvinistic "original sin" mentality
OK, both sides of this debate jsut started to make a hell of a lot more sense to me.
RevSparker: Yup. The Crossroads model really says that racism, like original sin, is inborn and whites are guilty. (if not inborn, taught at such a young age that it is impossible to escape)
and that the only way to "redemption" is strict adherence to an AR/AO model and practice:
to root out racism in all its forms...
to confess our guilt...
etc. etc. etc
What those original JTW people didn't see was that while a small group of people were having those life-altering experiences, many more were building resentment.
I am trying to acknowledge the depth of oppression, our complicity as an association of historically privileged folks, and yet...leave room for hope, grace, compassion, and love.
ChaliceChick: Wow. Umm... speaking of not wanting to be wrong, how come current AR/AO folks don't
admit this?
RevSparker: You know where the ones who do are? Starr King. (and some at 25 Beacon.)

Frankly, it's why I'm no longer on the JTWTC and am on the SKSM board instead. That is where I see a real UU theology of ECO emerging.
RevSparker: And they got there by making dumb mistakes like the brown bag thing. My allegiance to SK is not just because I went there.
ChaliceChick: OK.
RevSparker: It's because their work is the only place I see hopeful beginnings of a way out of all this.
That's what keeps me "hooked."
ChaliceChick: My impression is still that y'all are a bunch of hippies, but I do think that improving the racial climate is a good goal.

Which is kind of a weak ending, I'll admit, but that's when we were like "Hey! We should post this!"

S

So are we saying here that anti-Racism and critical thinking are mutually exclusive?

As y’all know, I’ve thought a lot about the Brown Bag debate. In truth, there are still some things I don’t get. I don’t have a dog in the whole “ministers publically criticizing each other” debate. After all, I’m a paralegal. Were I to call the competence of another paralegal into question on the internet citing subjective reasons, that would be frowned upon, to put my getting sued in the gentlest possible terms. Paralegals just don’t do that kinds of thing.

But that’s a ministerial politics thing that I don’t have to understand. I like people on both sides of that one, so I will let y’all argue it out.

That issue aside, I have to say that I think any of the snarky people, if approached by a guest speaker at their own church who said “Hey listen, since brown bags were used to exclude people from events at one point in history, I think calling my event a ‘brown bag lunch’ implies that people could be excluded on the basis of their skin color. I know you wouldn’t actually do that, but could we change the name of the meeting?”

Would ultimately go along with it. They might quietly think it’s a little much, but I think they would.

But I can’t imagine that they would stand up in front of their church and make a declaration that the term is racist, with no explanation, the way the SKSM folks did and then breeze on, assuming that everyone would simply accept a decree that if someone thinks something is racist, they must be right.

Several people, me included, have said that Mummert’s fear of speaking up was the real issue for them. It still is.

I address these questions to both sides.

1. What effect should it have when one person or a few people find a term offensive?*

2. What is an acceptable response when someone is offended by something and their offense seems unreasonable to you? (Let’s presume that you’ve asked for an explanation and the explanation still doesn’t make sense.)

3. Does our faith tradition of refining belief through reason have a place in anti-racism work? What is it?

4. What response should we have to people of color and others who feel that this sensitivity toward language actually does more harm than good? (I've been known to make this argument about gender-neutral language.)

5. Why is everybody so angry? Is there a reason our disagreements with one another have to be phrased the way some of the posts in this argument were? Is there a reason that so many UUs have stories of having been accused of racism for spurious-sounding reasons?

Answers to any or all questions would be appreciated.

CC

*And indeed, judging by the numbers of brown bag lunches on the TOPIC of racism one can find in a quick Google, criticism of the term on these grounds is not particularly widespread.

Finger-guns should never be unironic

The new UCC website is sort of silly.

The Socinian posts thought-provoking stuff

The Socinian describes a High School RE program that is absolutely not at all the YRUU program where I teach. The place I go every Sunday has the several dozen bright, thoughtful youth are politically active to a point, but have not bought into the rather dogmatic AR/AO mindset.

They do carwashes, sell totebags and put on a monopoly tournament and a Murder Mystery Dinner Theater for various charities. We have discussions of political issues and how religious issues apply, philosophy and how to deal with everyday difficulties of teenage life. We have about ten overnights a year and we do several cons where the kids bond and really get to know each other.

And again, there are several dozen of them. It's a vibrant, active group.

This may make The Socinian's point.

CC

Ok, THIS might make me rethink the bodies exhibition...

LinguistFriend is visiting and I took him to Bodies:the Exhibition.

We're maybe a quarter of the exhibit and he's already caught three
mistakes. (A Greek word indentified as latin, a mispelled Latin word
and a misunderstanding about the way voice production works...)

We will put up a complete post on errors in the exhibition later with
anything else he finds...

CC

--
___________________________
http://chalicechick.com/

"Friends? Hah. These are my only friends. Grown-up nerds like Gore
Vidal. And HE's kissed more boys than I ever will."

--Lisa Simpson

So one of my housemates just called...

"Hey CC, I read on your blog that you're having like five people over for dinner and you don't know what to cook. I could make that chicken jambalaya thing I make sometimes. Call me and let me know if you need it..."

So now I'm all smiley.

Ain't modern technology grand?

CC

Confidential to Charlie: You weren't picking up the phone when I called, so I'll try you back later, but yeah, that would rock. I will pick up a big salad and some sausage on the way home. And dessert. Tasty dessert.

CC

has five dinner guests showing up this evening and still does not even have half a clue what she's cooking.

These folks are quite unpretentious and good friends, so simple is OK.

Any suggestions?

CC

While I do consider myself pro-lunch in this case...

I think PB's initial post on the subject was meaner than it had to be, and while I disagree with a lot of the responses from people who disagree, they have on the whole seem have been going for a polite tone and that speaks well for them having a decent amount of respect for the power of polite discourse to solve problems.

It might stir up a bad association. It certainly will for me, thinking of students at Starr King, who have so many things to learn about ministry (none of which I heard mentioned in their latest YouTube testimonial, by the way) using up their precious brain cells remembering not to use the words “brown” and “bag” next to each other in a sentence.

for example, was over-the-top in my opinion.

Oh, and I am totally with Fausto when he says,

The opposite of reason, though, is credulity or gullibility, not anger or any other emotion.
(Confidential to Andy: Yes, the bible quotes were a bit much.)

CC
who felt that if that girl could stand up in a meeting and ask Rebecca Parker why on earth brown bag was racist, she reckoned she could stand up and say that.

My wicked smaht commenters

Jeff Wilson, as always, takes a position that I am inclined to take but not certain I can defend, and defends it beautifully.

But the comment on the SKSM matter that really got to me was from CK:

I think that if I were a guest speaker at a school in, say, the Netherlands, and I wanted them to rename their local dike because I was offended by the term, they'd have every right to say that they wouldn't, that they were sorry I had been hurt by homophobia, but that "dike" isn't a hurtful term in that context, and never had been.

And that should be the end of it. If I dug in my heels, then, well... I don't think I'd have any legitimate platform to complain.



Also, I think it odd that SKSM has not tried to get people to stop USING brown bags, only TALKING about a "Brown Bag lunch" and using a different term. I mean, is there a reason that seeing a brown bag would be less important than hearing about one?

CC
who has admittedly always wondered why somebody hasn't convinced the town of "Lynchburg, Virginia" to change it's name. So she's not totally unsympathetic.

Someone totally unqualified to discuess the brown bag lunch issue, who has no clear opinion, weighs in anyway.

This refers to PB's post Brown Bag Lunch.

I should begin here by stating my biases. My primary bias that is relevant to this discussion is that I really hate anything that makes a cause I basically believe in look stupid.

So I will say that my bias at first leads me to question the point of having an issue with the term "Brown Bag Lunch."

Now, what sort of issue Starr King had with the term is a different question. The actual words of Melissa Mummert's article on the issue are:

At an all-school meeting one afternoon, a faculty member announced, "Because of the racist connotations of the phrase brown bag lunch, we will now be using the term BYOL, 'bring your own lunch'

The direction of people's indignation over this issue seems partially to hinge on whether they take "We" to mean "the administration or the people leading this meeting" or "all of Starr King, including you."

I'm going to take on faith that Mummert quoted the announcement accurately and say I find the sentence too ambiguous to make the call, an odd problem for a sentence about language usage to have. The SKSM students who commented on PB's post imply that the speaker just meant she was talking about how the administration was going to talk. To me that begs the question of why announce the change. Just make the change.

I don't get the need to make a big announcement about it, where the racist usage of brown bags must be explained to everyone who hasn't lived in New Orleans.

That sort of reminds me of how I didn't know that Marilyn Monroe died naked until I heard the part of that Elton John song where he complained that people talked about it too much.

The need to make the big announcement has a "Ta-Da! Look how sensitive we are being!" ring to it that strikes me as, well, Sinkford-esque. That said, I sincerely appreciate their not putting out a press release on the issue.

I do have another bias on this issue, though. Call it "live and let live unless people are getting hurt." I really don't care what people call their lunch meetings. If some people find "brown bag" offensive, I really don't mind just letting them have their way. I don't really have a dog in the fight.

As I analyze my thoughts, I'm realizing that the all-school meeting announcement is really what I have an issue with. And I suspect that I'm not alone on this among people who mocked the issue.

If PB, Jeff or anyone else who talked about how stupid it was would care to tell me if I'm alone on this one in the comments, I would appreciate it, but isn't the big announcement really the issue? If someone had quietly pointed out the issue to the administration and they had quietly made the change, would anyone care?

I object to the big announcement for several reasons.

1. It gives the impression that the speaker sees the new policy as some big thing to be proud of, a blow against racism. Do the listeners go home feeling SKSM has done its good deed for the day?

2. It really does sound ridiculous to anyone who hasn't given it thought, and to a fair percentage of people who have. Like people getting fired for using the word "niggardly," which has exactly zero to do with the n-word in meaning or in word origins, or having issues with the word "picnic," which has a widely-believed word origins story that isn't true, I think picking small, silly-sounding linguistic battles is ultimately damaging to a cause. '

3. The ambiguity of the phrasing and the administration's announcement really does imply a certain "we will tell you how to talk" PC bossiness that seems to naturally rankle people.

Anyway, that's where I got on the issue.

CC

Oh, and...

I'm chubby myself, but I don't normally see nastiness toward overweight people as my hill to die on.

That said, this video kinda got to me:



What a whackjob...

CC

Outclassed, outgunned and WAY outconned.

After three days of Balticon, briefly interrupted to sneak back to Virginia for a "Drink rum and watch pirates" party, CC is wiped out.

The Sci-Fi con is not introverted CC's most natural habitat. Still, when I have a hotel room to rest in, I'm OK.

I mentioned that I could make stuff out of duct tape and I am well on my way to running a duct tape wallet workshop for kids at next year's con. So that's good.

CC

Article on The Secret

I've written before about "the Secret" and how skeptical I am of it. Here's an interesting article about it.


CC

If you came here for insightful theological commentary.

You won't find it on this blog today. Unlike me, however, the Lively Tradition is not too tired to be thoughtful.

CC

Spiderman III

I promised a Spiderman review awhile ago, so here I go:

I loved it and theCSO hated it. The movie gives quite a bit of backstory on every major character, and while that did slow things, I thought it was well worth the wait to really understand what was going on in people's heads. The story is really scattered, but I liked it that way.

Spiderman should probably not be allowed to cry in future movies, though, as Tobey Maguire looks really weird when he tries to cry. There was derisive snickering in my theater.

Oh, and Bruce Campbell played a snotty French waiter. That was bitchin'.

Movies that make a big point of social awkwardness don't tend to go over well in my house, and this one is no exception. Inside that costume, Spiderman is still the high school geek who just doesn't get, for example, that posing for a photograph with a pretty girl by imitating the iconic upside-down kiss from the first movie will piss off his girlfriend.

Spidey's biggest foe has always been himself and this movie doesn't shy from how destructive the desire for vengeance can be.

TheCSO thought the morality-play aspect was heavy handed, but honestly, how many kickass summer blockbusters even attempt to show the humanity of everyone involved?

I lurved it.

CC

More on the Founding Fathers.

On my list of rules to live by, right above "Never get into a land war in Asia," is "Never get into a history argument with Fausto."

But rules were made to be broken. Fausto pointed out in the comments on my previous Founding father post that much of the Founding Father snark could be taken to be against specifically Catholicism rather than Christianity in general.

He's right to a point. The Fouding Fathers seemed to have saved their sharpest snideness for the Catholic Church, but several of them were frequently critical of Christianity in general.

Ben Franklin was, like me, an ex-Presby. He wrote in his autobiogrpahy, "I had been religiously educated as a Presbyterian, and tho' some of the dogmas of that persuasion, such as the eternal decrees of God, election, reprobation, etc, appeared to me unintelligible, others doubtful, and I early absented myself from public assemblies of the sect."
For another example, in a letter to William Short, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

"The Presbyterian clergy are the loudest, most intolerant of all sects; the most tyrannical and ambitious, ready at the work of the law-giver, if such a word could be obtained, to put their torch to the pile and to rekindle in this virgin hemisphere the flame in which their oracle, Calvin, consumed the poor Servetus, because he could not subscribe to the proposition of Calvin, that magistrates have a right to exterminate all heretics to the Calvinistic Creed! They pant to re-establish by law that holy inquisition which they can now only infuse into public opinion."
Jefferson especially doesn't seem inclined to let the protestants off the hook, particularly given the prostestants' treatment of deists, Unitarians and anabaptists.

He also wrote several things, too long to quote easily here, that implied that his founding of UVA was based in part on his distaste for the Anglicanism of William and Mary, which at that point wasn't accepting non-Anglican students and had memorizing Anglican catchecisms as a required part of the curriculem.

I should mention here that while if I were to write, say, "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise," the way Madison did to William Bradford in 1774, I think my friends would assume the sentiment came out of intolerance for Christianity that is the mark of textbook asshat Humanism.

Though I am, I think, more inclined to draw connections from the ideas of the Age of Reason to Humanism and consider them two aspects of the same idea than Fausto is, I still don't think that asshat humanism was the true inspiration for the Founding Fathers' lack of enthusiasm for religion, and Christianity in particular.

The reformation, and the terrible violence that followed it, were fresh in the minds of the Founding Fathers. Ben Franklin's grandfather had hidden his bible in a secret compartment in a stool so it wouldn't be visibile to those enforcing religious laws. They were honestly committed to doing something different.

If someone were to come out of Eastern Europe or Northern Ireland today with a cynicism about religion and what those in power use it for, I think we would be inclined to cut them some slack.

We should also keep that context in mind when reading what the founding fathers had to say.

CC

Another poem CC likes

The Moment


The moment when, after many years
of hard work and a long voyage
you stand in the centre of your room,
house, half-acre, square mile, island, country,
knowing at last how you got there,
and say, I own this,

is the same moment when the trees unloose
their soft arms from around you,
the birds take back their language,
the cliffs fissure and collapse,
the air moves back from you like a wave
and you can't breathe.

No, they whisper. You own nothing.
You were a visitor, time after time
climbing the hill, planting the flag, proclaiming.
We never belonged to you.
You never found us.
It was always the other way round.

Margaret Atwood

The Founding Fathers as asshat humanists.

OK, perhaps "Humanists" is the wrong word as a lot of them were deists.

But when I hear a UU saying rude things about Christianity, I frequently think to myself "asshat humanist." Though I am a humanist, I try really hard not to be an asshat humanist.

For example, I would never describe a Catholic mass in mocking terms, finishing my essay off with the words "Here is everything which can lay hold of the eye, ear and imagination--everything which can charm and bewitch the simple and ignorant. I wonder how Luther ever broke the spell," the way John Adams did in his diary in the early 1770's.

In fact in reading Brooke Allen's Moral Minority: Our Skeptical Founding Fathers I am frequently amazed at how the Founding Fathers saw religion in many of the same ways I do on a bad day, they were just way more blunt about it.

I am delighted by this exhaustively-researched book that presents example after example of Founding Father snark revealed through primary sources.

Not every Founding Father was like this. George Washington faithfully attended church when he was in office and expected to, then promptly quit as soon as he was less prominent in the public eye, going to church only three times in the last three years of his life. (One could call this the "ChaliceDad method.") He never seems to have mentioned religion when he didn't have to and historians note that he would frequently edit references to Jesus out of his speeches and proclamations when they were put there by more zealous speechwriters.

Now the Founding Fathers were as diplomatic as anyone else in public. Most of the snark comes from diary entries and their letters to each other.

I've heard people posit that arguments about abortion, gay rights, etc, are the concerns of the lower and middle classes. The folks truly in power don't really care about them, but keep them just stirred up enough to keep poorer people fighting each other instead of working for a more egalitarian society.

Though I don't think the founding fathers fit this mold, I got a whiff of it as they wrote about their own indifference to the sorts of matters of doctrine that still cause dramatic church divisions today. Some were more sympathetic than others, but religious difference as what the lower classes do to amuse themselves was something of a pervasive theme.

And I'm only halfway through the book. I'll let you know if I continue noticing this pattern.

And yes, as Joel Monka reminds me, I owe you guys a SpiderMan review.

CC

Bodies: The Exhibition

was totally, totally cool. I learned so much about the way the body works.

Arteries are lovely, by the way...

FWIW, even though the bodies don't actually look like dead people, everyone was quite respectful. You got the sense that people really got that these were the bodies of people who had died. It was very quiet and I felt self conscious explaining things to my friend's children.

After seeing a cirratic liver and a smoker's lung, I could look at a body and get at least a few basic clues about how the person lived. (They all died of natural causes. Even the fetuses are from miscarriages.) It wasn't like your typical museum display of cookie-cutter anatomy models. These people were different sizes and different builds. One woman had a weird belly button. To at once looking at the inside of their bodies while having such a sense of their humanity was a transcendent experience.

Breasts look like coral. They're beautiful.

My friend's six-year-old boy was riveted by a display of tumors of the female reproductive system. He insisted I read the captions on each one and tried to explain them as well as I could. I also told him this was why you're supposed to go to the doctor every year so that things like that could be caught when they were small.

I confronted a prostate.

The bodies that appeared to be in motion were my favorites. You could see the way muscles worked.

I really feel like this experience has changed my view of my body, and I hope the souls of the people who once inhabited those bodies are someplace where they can appreciate that.

CC

Sniffle.

Smart-women TV trend dims as CW axes 'Veronica Mars'

Sigh.

CC

Idol Update

Earlier this week, I was like "Uh-oh, looks like Idol and the two-hour season finale of Veronica Mars might be up against one another next Tuesday. What's a girl too lazy to figure out how to Tivo one while watching the other without actually going to someone else's house to watch to do?"

Then Melinda got voted off.

Now, the problem is solved.

Actually, it was a meh reality show night all around with Jaslene winning on ANTM. CC had been for really-bratty-but-hella-talented-Brittney, who got kicked off a couple of weeks ago.

Anyway, yeah, my Tuesday night will be spent with Veronica.

I hope it's not the series finale.

CC

Sigh.

Snark at its best is not just pointless unfunny sarcasm aimed at an incredibly easy target.

It's not being rude for the sake of being rude, and should you offend someone "It's snark week" is not a defense. Nobody likes a Mean Girl, even on snark week.

For me, good snark is taking something that sucks, really sucks, and making it into something funny, something better. Sometimes, that's the only thing that makes it bearable.

Though anybody can whine, complain or make fun of someone, real snark to me isn't something you can just start doing on command, it's usually brought on by a thinly veiled sense of outrage. That's why I think the early UU Christian blogs did it better, because in some real sense they felt oppressed.

Just sayin'

CC

I don't have much to say about the death of Jerry Falwell

As far as I'm concerned, Ms. Kitty said it all.

CC
who was so busy today she didn't even hear about Falwell's death until just now.

How can I appear to be a religious person? Do I want to?

I've had an odd issue in my life recently, and one that I'm not going into much detail on as several of the principals read this blog, that centered around people I'm fairly close to me not realizing how religious I am.

On one level, I don't get this. I have lots of religion books that I read and talk about, I make it to church a respectable percentage of Sundays, I spend lots of time volunteering with YRUU and, well, I have a religion blog.

By liberal standards, I'm a Jesus freak. (Ok, maybe not Jesus, but you see my point...)

I do partially understand the confusion in that I don't prostelytize, I don't complain about people sinning, and I don't obviously follow a bunch of religious rules. I don't forward religious emails or have a plastic chalice on my car. I don't judge people who don't go to church, I just do my own spiritual thing and assume other people are doing theirs in their own way.

So by conservative standards, I really don't look like a religious person at all.

A few thoughts on this issue:

1. Could it be that part of the reason that political and religious conservatives believe that political and religious liberals aren't religious is because liberals do not appear so because liberals express their commitment to religion in different ways?

2. Should we/I try to give off a few signs of religiousity to help people get it? If so, what should I/we do?


CC

Another poem CC likes

Sex without Love

How do they do it, the ones who make love
without love? Beautiful as dancers,
gliding over each other like ice-skaters
over the ice, fingers hooked
inside each other's bodies, faces
red as steak, wine, wet as the
children at birth whose mothers are going to
give them away. How do they come to the
come to the come to the God come to the
still waters, and not love
the one who came there with them, light
rising slowly as steam off their joined
skin? These are the true religious,
the purists, the pros, the ones who will not
accept a false Messiah, love the
priest instead of the God. They do not
mistake the lover for their own pleasure,
they are like great runners: they know they are alone
with the road surface, the cold, the wind,
the fit of their shoes, their over-all cardio-
vascular health--just factors, like the partner
in the bed, and not the truth, which is the
single body alone in the universe
against its own best time.


-Sharon Olds

More on Cuba

As I've said, I don't think the embargo is a good idea. With a few notable exceptions, my impression is that boycotts of any sort don't really work.

That said, that people going to Cuba need to give the state department some paperwork is still the law.

If you break it and get punished, maybe it isn't a vast right wing conspiracy.
Maybe you just broke the law and got punished.

And Moore hasn't even been punished yet, they are just thinking about punishing him. Which hasn't stopped him from rolling out a massive publicity campaign about how awful it is that he isn't above the law.

Also, I was confused by the apparent disparity between the half of my readers who think Cuba has great hospitals and the half who think they have terrible hospitals.

TheCSO had read up on it at one point and found that both groups are right.

Cuba does have great hospitals--for high-ranking members of the party and for rich tourists.

The regular folks have to go to crappy hospitals.

I did not know this, but it turns out Cuba is a major tourist destination for rich europeans and South Americans, just not Americans.

I can understand that Cuba's lack of research discoveries comes from dictator-imposed lack of contact with the outside world.

But as far as I know, my general point about socialized medicine, that it is dependent upon the Americans to actually cure diseases and discover new treatments, is still true.

If there are a bunch of discoveries coming out of France or Canada, I'm happy to be corrected, educate me.

CC

Movie ratings, etc.

Jess's Journal has a good post about movie ratings and the absurdity that, Big Night, a movie where characters swear a lot gets an "R" while all the pummellings in Spider Man earn it only a PG-13.

Of course the producers of Big Night HAD to put all that swearing in because adults usually won't go to a movie that isn't at least PG-13, and sometimes not an R, because they tend to assume its a kids movie.

I thought PG-13 was a fair rating for Spider-Man and I think an R would have been too much for a movie with a lot of mostly-bloodless beating up and a death or two. If I'm remembering right, I the Micheal Keaton "Batman" was PG-13 too. I'd say they have equivilent levels of violence and that most teenagers would be just fine seeing either without an adult, though kids might want to sit with mom. Actually, kids might well be bored out of their minds. The CSO is in his twenties and he got antsy during the slow parts of Spider-Man.

I agree with Jess that it is ridiculous that it's easier to earn an "R" through sex than violence. I think that I have mentioned that my cousin took me to "Peggy Sue Got Married" when I was seven or eight and I remember my parents freaking out about it, but I saw it again on cable when I was in my twenties and realized that the sex jokes had gone totally over my head. I had retained the basic plot (Lady goes back in time to high school and wants to do things differently, but then realizes that she was happier doing them the same way. But it might have been a dream. No, wait, it wasn't...)

I do wonder about the language thing, though. If the big concern is that kids will imitate what they see, they are far more likely to pick up the word "fuck" from an excitable Italian than they are to pick up tossing people off of buildings from a bad guy wearing a suit built by his mad scientist father.

Though I hid my eyes as the Snakes on a Plane bit a few choice body parts, the last time I remember being well and truly freaked out when I was in a movie theater was when I watched a preview for "Independence Day" where they very realistically blew up the White House. It wasn't so much that the movie itself traumatized me, but that just when I was getting ready to leave for college, they went and blew up my hometown.

It was freaky, y'all.

CC

From a YRUU overnight

So, anybody up for an all-adults game of Wink at GA?

I am so into it.

They just didn't play stuff like that at the Presbyterian youth retreats...

CC

I've been known to make fun of self-help books

because self-help books more or less sound like this to me:

Snl_dontbuystuff
Uploaded by shosterman

What is wink?

PB wants to know what Wink is. As wikipedia notes, there are many variations on the basic theme. This is merely how my group does it. Ok, you start in the position in Fig. 1 below.



As you can see, people are in pairs and there is an "outside" (represented by diamonds) line and an "inside" (represented by octagons) line. On a predicided command, presumably a wink, though I have never actually been close enough to the fray to witness the actual wink, the "winker" signals the "inside row" to leap forward. The people on the inside hurl themselves forward and try to be the first to kiss the "winker" on top of the head. They can only crawl, crawling all over everybody is an accepted part of the game. Indeed, it's really the point.

Meanwhile, the folks on the "outside" row (who were not allowed to touch the inside row folks until they moved) must try to keep their inside row partner from delivering the winning kiss. The usual method is a sort of low-speed tackle and then a lot of wrestling around.

Soon everybody is throwing each other every which way an a huge pile of raging hormones. I can imagine a wink game gedtting violent if the wrong people played, but among my group maximum bodily contact is more important than the actual winning. Everybody's fully clothed, of course.

Eventually, somebody actually delivers the winning kiss to the winker's head and the winker yells "Smooch!" (Fig. 2)


That indicates the round is over. The outside person who had been gaurding the winner becomes the new winker unless, you know, somebody else wants to.

It must be seen to be believed and having seen it half a dozen times, I'm like "Wow, y'all I want to play that."

Just not with fifteen-year-olds.

CC

A strict-constructionist anti-racist.

At the end of a long discussion, theCSO said,

"I consider myself a strict-constructionist anti-racist. I don't believe in discrimination on the basis of what is in your genes. However, I think sometimes we can quite reasonably discriminate on this basis of some cultural factors,"

I don't know how to respond to that. In some ways I like it as it gives a neat answer to the perinnial Chalicechick question "What is a properly anti-rascist approach to cultures that treat women badly?"

But I don't think it is a whole answer.

Comments?

CC

I love this poem.

Summons


Keep me from going to sleep too soon
Or if I go to sleep too soon
Come wake me up. Come any hour
Of night. Come whistling up the road.
Stomp on the porch. Bang on the door.
Make me get out of bed and come
And let you in and light a light.
Tell me the northern lights are on
And make me look. Or tell me clouds
Are doing something to the moon
They never did before, and show me.
See that I see. Talk to me till
I'm half as wide awake as you
And start to dress wondering why
I ever went to bed at all.
Tell me the walking is superb.
Not only tell me but persuade me.
You know I'm not too hard persuaded.

Robert Francis

At a YRUU overnight.

So, who is up for an all-adults game of Wink at GA?

Seriously, y'all, that game looks fun. They never let the Presby
teens play something like that when I was a kid...

CC
who apologises if this is a double post. it looks like the first one
didn't go through...

--
___________________________
http://chalicechick.com/

"Friends? Hah. These are my only friends. Grown-up nerds like Gore
Vidal. And HE's kissed more boys than I ever will."

--Lisa Simpson

This rocks for so many reasons...

Can't argue with that...

So I'm cruising Facebook and I get a note that one of my YRUU padawans has joined a facebook group called "Against Gay Marriage? Then Don't Get One and Shut the Fuck Up"

Someone else I know is in a group called "Che Guevara was a murderer and your t-shirt is not cool"

Succinct. I like them.

CC

Browning's the Ring and the Book

Hey, I'm trying to get through Browning's The Ring and the Book and at this point it truly feels like I'm "trying to get through."

I know this book is brilliant as it comes to me with the highest possible praise from someone I respect, but I am finding it a very difficult read. Perhaps novel-length poetry just isn't my thing, but I would dearly love to be getting more out of it.

And geez, it's essentially a crime epic. Crime fascinates me.

Anyway, does anybody who has read it have any advice?

Thanks,

CC

Remind me...

Would someone please post something to remind me that not all Christians are intolerant jerks?

Even CC the usual defender of conservatives needs it sometimes...

CC

Guy who went to Cuba without proper paperwork in trouble with the state department.

Oh, wait, that guy was Michael Moore, so it must be a Republican conspiracy against him! Don't they understand that Micheal Moore doesn't have to do paperwork? He has a special pass!

More seriously, to me, this sounds like an obvious publicity stunt.

I find myself asking "Why on earth would a multimillionaire take ten people who got sick cleaning up after 9-11 to Cuba for treatment?"

and

"Because it would be great publicity and he could use the opportunity to make sweeping statements about US healthcare (see how cheap third world healthcare is?) and at the same time make it very likely he would get in trouble and be able to claim he's a guy worth conspiring against" is the only reasonable answer I can think of.

CC
who doesn't want third world healthcare, no matter how good Moore makes it look for the purposes of his movie.

On the polarization of stuff

I apologize for any times I have taken the "kid in church" discussion to polarizing levels. I never intended to imply that anybody's kids should be banned from church. Obviously different people's kids react to the service in different ways. if your kids like church, sure, take them.

While I don't think this is enough of a discrimination issue to find the comparisons to other forms of discrimination useful, I get that they come from people who honestly feel that their small child is no less able to get things out of the service than a handicapped person or lesbian or African American. And I get where they were going with the idea.

To my thinking, my current church's model, where there's kid-friendly content for the first fifteen minutes of the service then everybody troops off to Sunday school, is about the ideal.

The kids of UUs I know and adore do happen to be above average in intelligence, but I mostly got to know them from their parents and their parents are above average in intelligence like most of my friends, so I guess that's not surprising.

The UU age group at my own church that I know best are the teens and while I would say we have a normal range of intelligences, (and a very hyperactivity-friendly program, I might add) I will say that I honestly do think UU kids are unusually decent and sensitive, though.

Thoughtful, too.

And yeah, if I knew that my church's nursery was yucky, I would take steps to fix it up. I've been a nursery volunteer and it wasn't my favorite thing, but it's better than folks feeling that the nursury is too yucky to keep their kids in.

Anyway, so that's where I am on this discussion.

CC

In which Earthbound Spirit asks for CC's righteous indignation and gets it.

From Earthbound Spirit's latest post:

I recently heard a UU say “our children are all incredibly bright and gifted and sensitive,” and I was reminded of Garrison Keillor’s line about Lake Woebegone being the place where all the children are above average. My heart broke a little when I heard this person say that.

There are kids in our collective UU Sunday school classes who have learning disabilities, attention problems, physical disabilities and mental illnesses. Unfortunately, I think some of us believe all our children – and all our adult members – are (or should be) above average. Folks, I think this runs absolutely counter to our Universalist religious heritage of inclusion. When we fail to be inclusive, we fail to recognize the gifts that average, or even below average, people bring to a faith community. In a similar way we fail to recognize the gifts that children bring to a faith community.


As a former hyperactive child, I question her assumption that the way to be welcoming to those below-average learning disabled children she told us about is to force them to sit quietly for an hour or more when they might be highly uncomfortable doing so.

If this post about those of us who are below average (as I think the equating of learning disabled and below average that I'm seeing is pretty clear) is an example of the sympathetic UU adult's ability to think about someone else's needs and learn by doing so, consider me unimpressed.

CC

So why do we as a culture think anal rape is funny?

This is one of those things that has bothered me for awhile, but I haven't ever written about it.

Linguist Friend knows a Polish curse that translates to "may a branch fuck you" that implies a sort of torture that you can imagine without any additional help from me. (I'm sure he'd teach it to you at GA if you asked nicely.) I bring this up not to bitch at Linguistfriend (or Poland, for that matter) but I have to wonder how desensitized one has to be to find that a good thing to say. Admittedly, I don't think I've ever heard LF say it to anyone other than a misbehaving cat. But still...

Perhaps I'm overly sensitive to this because my brother is in jail and everybody knows that prison rape is the funniest thing ever. I've been known to write to wacky morning show Djs that joke about prison rape and say "Prison rape? Is still rape. Is rape funny to you?" I get sheepish responses and there are often fewer rape jokes on that specific show, but it's a drop in a very large cultural bucket.

I'm pretty sure that if I said that I wanted a female to be forcibly impaled on something, the community would be mad at me. But if I said the same thing about a guy, that's funny?

The only specific example I used was one from my best friend for a reason. Finger-pointing and talking about past things people have said sounds like a boring discussion to me. Comments attacking individuals will be deleted from this post. I'm not looking to attack any specific person for making jokes about it, but I am curious why it happens and why it really doesn't seem to bother anyone but me as far as I can tell.

CC

In case you're thinking about link spamming my blog

You should probably know that I have "nofollow" set up in the HTML to my comments, so a post that is basically just a link is a waste of your time. I don't think anybody on the UU blogosphere will bother to click it and it won't help your google ranking.

CC

Added later: For those of you who can't be bothered to look things up, link spam is a brief comment with a link to one's own website that is clearly designed not to add to the conversation, but to advertise one's own site. Sometimes, I delete those all together. Sometimes I don't. But the point is, they don't do any good on my site. It's unlikely that anyone will follow them as they are obvious ads. And I have a special tag in place so they do not contribute to Google ranking.

Blog envy

My, the internet is looking fine these days...

CC

Katy-the-Wise on the Green Sanctuary Program

Some years ago, Katy-the-Wise gave me a bunch of her old sermons and said I was welcome to edit them into a book if I felt so strongly she should write one. (And I did, and I do.) I jumped into the project with great enthusiasm, only to discover that putting her sermons into cohesive book would be like trying to make a chain of eggs. Each sermon is so tightly-written and self-contained.

But Sermons like this one remind me why I thought the project was such a good idea in the first place.

CC

DC Folks: Bodies Exhibition?

CC's best friend from elementary school is organizing a trip to see the "Bodies" exhibition on May 19th We're trying to get a group of 15+ together so we can all get the group rate.


Wanna go?

CC
Personal to Jana-who-creates: I've already got you and the guys down.

Those evil people who do not want children in church services.

FWIW, I'm the one who started the big discussion of babies and small children at church. I started it with a comment that essentially said that infants and toddlers in church should be discouraged.

Honestly, I still think that's true. Lizard Eater made the point that mothers of infants don't like to leave their kid in nursuries. If so, there's a lot of places the mother shouldn't go.

It is ultimately the mother's choice?

Of course.

But a lot of mothers make poor choices. CC and theCSO very much enjoy going to midnight openings of brand new movies, and almost every time there's a baby or a young child there who really ought to be at home in bed, even when the movie is obviously inappropriate. As I've written before, I am constantly tempted to print up some paper signs and put them in every stall of the ladies room: "If the midnight showing of King Kong is constantly interrupted by the cries of your traumatized three-year-old, you are a bad mother."

This next opinion is absolutely going to get me in trouble, but I am a skeptic on the argument "My baby would rather be in a noisy confusing environment that has no toys and where she must be quiet with me, than a crib in the nursury where she can move around and play without me. I know, because I'm the mother."

We have four cats in our house. Three of them, Boris, Cool Disco Dan and Esperanto, belong to theCSO and me. One of them, Ursus, belongs to the housemates. Tina's position is that Boris, Cool Disco Dan and Esperanto should be kept away from her baby whenever possible. Ursus can get in the baby's face all Ursus wants.

Why?

"Because Victoria WOVES her wittle Ursus-kitty!"

Can't argue with that, I suppose. But I honestly don't think Victoria can tell the difference between the cats at all. I think it is very easy for mothers to assume their babies agree with them in the abscence of evidence. Most kids are going to fuss when the mother leaves them with someone else, but my observation is that five minutes later, the kid is over it and paying attention to something else.

Maybe I'm wrong about your specific kid, but my experience of church nursuries is that I'm not wrong about most kids.

I've been pretty open about the fact that my opinons on this come from the fact that my parents assumed that since I was smart, I would get something out of church. I was forced to attend church as a small child and I despised it. Sunday was my least favorite day of the week. I hate sitting still, I hated being quiet, I really hated getting punished when I failed to meet my parents' standards for both. I lobbied to be allowed to take books into church. When I won that one, the situation improved somewhat, but I was still pretty unhappy. Finally, when I was seven years old, I started sneaking notes into the collection plate that read "The Sermon was too long."

At that point, somebody talked to my parents and I was finally allowed to hang out on the playground on Sunday mornings instead.

My position is absolutely not that kids who make noise in church and distract other people are bad, it is that they are uncomfortable. My church follows the "Kids are in the service for the first fifteen minutes, and for that fifteen minutes, the content is geared toward them" model. That's just fine with me.

I get that lots of parents put their kid's comfort over their own interest in the sermon and take noisy kids out. I appreciate that. To be honest, I often hang out just outside the church where one can hear what is going on but doesn't have to remain still myself.


CC

CC, Carrie Underwood come to peace accord

This actually happened a couple of months ago and I've been meaning to write about it, but I kept forgetting. Luckily, a reader reminded me by posting the following comment on my old Jesus, take the wheel post.

just for your information...i think that song and carrie underwood are great i think you might just be jealous because you arent as good as her and the people on here who think that song is dumb and laugh at it? GO FUCK YOURSELF FOR ME OK? THANKS!!

(For new readers, the post where I make fun of "Jesus, take the wheel" got a lot of mail like that. I'm no fan of hippies, but I've got to admit that the people who wrote to defend "Imagine," another song I dislike and made fun of in a post, were far more literate and reasonable.)

So anyway, TheCSO and I were watching Saturday Night Live. We normally ignore the musical guests completely and fast-forward through their stuff, but we started talking and weren't paying attention. All of the sudden this blonde singer took the stage and started singing a slightly dark and creepy song, a little bit sexy, a little bit crazy, about destroying her boyfriend's car because he was cheating on her.

That singer was Carrie Underwood, and that song was "Before he cheats."

And it rocked.

So anyway, we're not running out to buy concert tickets or anything, but I did want to acknowledge that she has done a song I really like.

CC

CC loved the new Spiderman movie.

And theCSO really hated it.

More on why in the morning.

CC

Stupid things to sigh about

I'm really bummed that theOnion killed off Herbert Kornfeld

CC

Sigh.

You know how life hits you with the same lessons over and over again until you learn them?

Tonight's lesson was "You can get very close to your friends and feel like your friends are your family, but ultimately they aren't your family, and at some point, you will be hit, and hit hard, by that."

Of course, I've been hit with this before, and likely will be my whole life, but still, damn.

CC

American Idol notes

1. TheCSO and I prefer Melinda Doolittle's version of "Have a Nice Day" to Bon Jovi's. She improves it the way the Flying Lizards improve anything they sing.

2. I honestly have no clue who is getting voted off. Two people who are normally meh (Phil, Lakisha) really brought it. I hope to God Chris finally gets voted off because I hate his hair, or lack thereof, and I'm tired of hearing everyone talk about how hot he is. I don't get how so many women thing guys with buzz cuts are hot. Seriously, ick.

3. I hope this is the end for Jordan because, well, she's Melinda's stiffest competition IMHO.

4. I can understand why 50 percent of people like Blake's beatbox thing, I just happen to be in the other 50 percent.

CC

Ps. Written circa 1:00am: BTW, I can't sleep and am watching Keith Olbermann for the first time. Frankly, I don't get the fascination. To me, he is coming off as a whiny, sarcastic pain in the ass.

Maybe he's having an off night.

Or maybe I'm jsut cranky.

A new blog I really like

Meanwhile, back at the parsonage...


CC

Hang with CC, LF and Ms. K at GA

Sign up for the blogger dinner this year!

Last year's was completely fun.

See you there!

CC

Has "writing while Asian" become a crime?

A couple of people in my blogosphere have commented on the story of Allen Lee, the Cary-Grove High School senior facing two misdemeanor counts of disorderly conduct for writing an essay that made his teacher think he sounded like a school shooter.

We an argue out the legalities of this one, but the truth of the matter is, I have some sympathy for the charge. Because this kid is supposed to be a straight-A student, and his comments show that he can write perfectly intelligently.

And the peice of writing in question really does sound like something a crazy guy would write, almost certainly by design. (He claims in his comments that it is supposed to be written "in character," but according to news reports, his assignment was free-writing, so his teacher had no reason to assume he wasn't writing about himself. He certainly didn't tell her.)

Honestly, reading this and comparing it to his usual writing, I have trouble believing that this particular kid wasn't playing a prank on his english teachers.

The essay:

Blood sex and Booze. Drugs Drugs Drugs are fun. Stab, Stab, Stab, S...t...a...b..., poke. “So I had this dream last night where I went into a building, pulled out two P90s and started shooting everyone..., then had sex with the dead bodies. Will, not really, but it would be funny if I did.” Umm, yeah, what to wright about...... I’m leaving to join the Marines and I really don’t give a F*** about my academics, so why does the only class that’s complete Bull S***, happen to be the only required class...enough said. The model citizen would stay around to vote in new board member to change the 4 years of English policy, but no one really stays around to vote for that kind of local crap, so whoever gets there name on the Ballet with a pretty face gets to do what the F*** ever they want with local ordinance. A person is smart, but people are dumb selfish animals. We can’t make rules for ourselves so we vote others to do it for us, but we can’t even do that right, I meen seriously, Bush for President? And our other option was John Kerry who claimed to partake in Vietnam Special Forces missions that haven’t been declassified....F***ing Bull S***. So Power Flower Super Mario. Pudge, hook, rot, dismember “Fresh Meat.” Most new/young teachers are laid back, and cooperative with students as feedback and input into the curriculum and atmosphere. My current English teacher is a control freak intent on setting a gap between herself and her students like a 63 year old white male fortune 500 company CEO, and a illegal immigrant. If CG was a private catholic school I could understand, but wtf is her problem. And baking brownies and rice crispies does not make up for it, way to try and justify yourself as a good teacher while underhandidly looking for complements on your cooking. No quarrel on you qualifications as a writer, but as a teacher, don’t be surprised on inspiring the first cg shooting.






OK, this is apparently how he usually writes: (Yes, this could theoretically have been written by his lawyer, but as again, he's a straight-a student so I'm sure the essay doesn't represent his real writing.)

Author’s Note: This production of the writing is done in the most accurate manner I can depict of the original writing. Grammar and spelling mistakes are included at the best accuracy possible. The first phrase in questions is in fact a Green Day song. The second reference to drugs is in relation to the schools history of drug problems. I am personally clean of all controlled substances. The statement in quotes is done so as a non personal statement as I would have done in reference to a character for a story. The reference to the gun P90 is from a video game, combined with a reference to necrophilia as a comment regarding a seriously messed up situation. A situation such as the rape of villagers during a raid by U.S. troops in Vietnam. I really do not care too much about by continuing academia as in relation to grades. I do however believe on continuing my personal education, and I am actually still working for my classes. My views on the graduation requirements explain themselves. The reference to Mario and Pudge(a DOTA character) are completely random in this essay. The reference to a person being smart and people being dumb is based on a quite from “Men in Black.” I generally do believe the public opinion is best. The rest of the essay is rather self explanatory, the main statement in question I have already released a comment online about. I request that all information I have released is read together, and nothing is given separately or as an excerpt as the administration has seen fit to do.

On an additional note, I have completed the MEPS (Military Entry Processing Station) examinations, and yes a psychiatric evaluation is included in the process. If I’m qualified to defend the country, I believe I am qualified to attend school.



Now, if there has just been a school shooting, and you write an essay like that one, is your conduct disorderly?

Honestly, I'm hard pressed to say that it isn't.

CC

Happy Administrative Professionals Day

Not too long ago, CC made photocopies and filed and ran down to the deli for snacks for people and mailed things.

Now she has two wonderful ladies in her office who do these things for her so she can research, draft motions, answer interrogatories and write letters.

A secretary's day not too long ago, CC got a gift card and a handshake, then went back to photocopying and filing and running to the deli and mailing things.

This morning, CC dropped forty bucks on two plants in cute planters and two funny cards and she is already at her desk doing research, drafting motions, answering interrogatories and writing letters.

What they say is so true. Tis better to give than to recieve.

CC

American Idol Note

Blake is dead to me now.

CC

Domesticity so sweet.

Our housemates didn't come home last night.

We didn't think much of it at the time. They work odd schedules and sometimes they stay out late. But there were no baby cries in the morning, and our-Hero-Charlie-the-Brave's car was still missing.

It was then I started to worry a bit.

"Was it something we said?" I asked.

"Maybe he and Tina have been murdered by Russian spies," TheCSO said. (Charlie is ex-CIA.)

We tried their cell phones and they didn't answer, which isn't unusual. Mid-morning, I tried Charlie's mom's house. He and his mom are really close and I knew she would know. I left a message.

Tonight theCSO had heard from her. Charlie had hurt his foot and he and the baby had slept at his mother's house. Tina had been downstairs. (You may think it's weird that we never actually looked in their apartment for them, but you have to understand that our housemates are not typically quiet people. At all. And their car was gone.)

After dark, theCSO and I walked Rebecca around the neighborhood. (What is it that makes the air smell like raisins on warm nights down at the end of our street?) We held hands and talked about our friends, laughing as the dog kept pulling us along.

Two blocks from home, Charlie's car pulls up next to us.

"Hey guys!"

We walk up to the car and talk for awhile, happy to catch up. No, he hadn't been murdered by spies. And we hadn't said anything wrong either. His foot is better, his wife is tired but was grateful for a night of uninterrupted sleep. He's trying to figure out how to burn a CD from Itunes for his sister tonight. TheCSO leans into the car and describes the process while Charlie asks questions.

They could be two small-town old guys arguing over a transmission. Finally, I tell theCSO to just get in the car and go show Charlie. I'll walk the dog back.

I turn away from the car, but Charlie isn't finished talking to me.

"Wait a sec," he says as theCSO gets in on the passenger's side.

"Yeah?" I turn back around.

"Thanks for checking up on us, that meant a lot"

"No problem," And the car pulls away.

I slowly walk Rebecca back home, smelling raisins in the air and wondering if this is what a family feels like.

CC

Apropos of nothing

So, I usually use Arm and Hammer toothpaste, but I couldn't find it this morning. I guess I'm out. Either theCSO or one of my housemates had bought Aquafresh and I decided to try that.

I brushed, spit into the sink and noticed with horror the pinkness of what I'd just spat out. "Damn," I thought to myself. "I have some SERIOUS gingivitis all of a sudden."

Around then I noticed that aquafresh toothpaste is white and red.

Well, that's stupid...

CC
who felt she should say something light today as the CB has been sort of ponderous lately.

Corpse-Cold CC ponders how to reach out.

Today in Youth Group, a girl announced that two of her friends had died at Virginia Tech. And I had no clue what to say, and I'm supposed to be the leader.

I think what came out of my mouth was something like "Oh, gosh, that sucks. I'm so sorry."

The girl was very stoic about it, very much the way I would likely be. We talked about it for a few minutes, then someone said something that allowed for a gradual change of subject. The girl seemed willing to let the topic change, so I let it change, too.

After class I came up to her, gave her my card and said "I know that a lot of people will say 'Call me if you need to talk,' but I'm going to say it too. Seriously, I'm here for you."

She smiled, took the card, said "thank you," and turned away.

People have told me that I'm "hard to help" because I am so flat when I'm upset. Today I see their point. Had she collapsed sobbing into my arms, I would have known what to do.

When she turned away, I felt like the best thing to do was give her some air and know that if she never called me, I wasn't the person she needed.

Goodness YRUU stuff isn't easy sometimes.

CC

Even Buddhist monks shop at Costco

I am totally charmed by this news story

What odd, but lovely, people...

CC

Words that still ring true

(I didn't write this. I stole it from here.)

WHY THE BOMBINGS MEAN WE MUST SUPPORT MY POLITICS.

Of course the World Trade Center bombings are a uniquely tragic event, and it is vital that we never lose sight of the human tragedy involved. However, we must also consider if this is not also a lesson to us all; a lesson that my political views are correct. Although what is done can never be undone, the fact remains that if the world were organised according to my political views, this tragedy would never have happened.

Many people will use this terrible tragedy as an excuse to put through a political agenda other than my own. This tawdry abuse of human suffering for political gain sickens me to the core of my being. Those people who have different political views from me ought to be ashamed of themselves for thinking of cheap partisan point-scoring at a time like this. In any case, what this tragedy really shows us is that, so far from putting into practice political views other than my own, it is precisely my political agenda which ought to be advanced.

Not only are my political views vindicated by this terrible tragedy, but also the status of my profession. Furthermore, it is only in the context of a national and international tragedy like this that we are reminded of the very special status of my hobby, and its particular claim to legislative protection. My religious and spiritual views also have much to teach us about the appropriate reaction to these truly terrible events.

Countries which I like seem to never suffer such tragedies, while countries which, for one reason or another, I dislike, suffer them all the time. The one common factor which seems to explain this has to do with my political views, and it suggests that my political views should be implemented as a matter of urgency, even though they are, as a matter of fact, not implemented in the countries which I like.

Of course the World Trade Center attacks are a uniquely tragic event, and it is vital that we never lose sight of the human tragedy involved. But we must also not lose sight of the fact that I am right on every significant moral and political issue, and everybody ought to agree with me. Please, I ask you as fellow human beings, vote for the political party which I support, and ask your legislators to support policies endorsed by me, as a matter of urgency.

It would be a fitting memorial.

CC's feeling somewhat better

I went in to work this morning and did a few things that I could only do at the office, then photocopied some files and came home. I've been reasonably productive, and much happier, since.

Hint: The leaf of one's dining room table makes an executive-sized lapdesk that fits two files and a laptop.

Unfortunately, that I am answering interrogatories means that Bill Barr's suggestion of a whiskey and lemonade cure for what ails me will have to wait. But hey, there's always this evening...

CC

For the love of God, won't somebody amuse me?

I am home sick in bed and it turns out all my books are boring. Everything on TV, too. The billion magazines we have all over the house?

Boring.

Even the internet has begun to bore me.

(Item: I've only been awake for three hours.)

CC

I read the guy's plays so you don't have to.

FWIW, I found the Virginia Tech Shooter's Plays and read them. I've summarized and commented on them below.

The plays:

Richard McBeef: An angry teenage boy is trying to convince his mom that his stepdad is a murderer/child molester. Though he admits to the stepdad that he was lying, he's successful in breaking up his mother's relationship, but the stepfather kills him.

Mr. Brownstone: A bunch of teenagers sneak into a casino and are playing casino games, talking about how much they hate their teacher and wish they could kill him. (They make many references to how the teacher "ass rapes" people. Whether this is intended as metaphor isn't clear.) The teacher shows up at some point. One of them wins the jackpot and the teacher claims that the kids knocked him over and stole his ticket. So the teacher gets the money and the kids swear they will get revenge.

CC's Thoughts on them:

Both stories are badly written and seem more like the work of a high school kid than a college student. He does not come off as if English were his second language, he comes off as very immature and an unsophisticated thinker. He also doesn't understand some of the basics of playwriting. (E.g. If at all possible, avoid having scenes take place in cars.)

Honestly, though, had I been in a class where these were workshopped, I would have thought the guy was a jackass, but I wouldn't necessarily have thought "school shooter." He comes off as much more mentally ill in "Mr. Brownstone."

I do write mysteries myself, and though the shooter's work is very bad, when I reread the summary I wrote of the first play, I might easily have written a story with the same plot outline.

It's probably worth noting what the two plays had in common:

1. Angry young people who are ultimately punished for their actions.
2. Accusations of molestation (admitted to be lies in the first play, possibly hyperbole in the second)
3. Lots of swearing, much of it sort of odd in the way that kids who are just learning to swear use swearing badly.

Anyway, that's what I gleaned from them.

CC

"All laws must be followed" examined.

At a church meeting I attended last night, someone told me she had read that the President's reaction to yesterday's Virginia Tech shootings was to talk about how we still shouldn't have gun control.

A bunch of us thought that was odd. I speculated that he might have said it before the second shooting.

Anyway, after hearing about it from a few more people, I decided to look it up.

It turns out that Bush himself didn't say anything about gun rights and the shooting.

His press secretary did say:

" "As far as policy, the president believes that there is a right for people to bear arms, but that all laws must be followed. And certainly, bringing a gun into a school dormitory and shooting numbers -- I don't want to say numbers, because I know that they're still trying to figure out how many people were wounded and possibly killed. But obviously, that would be against the law and something that someone should be held accountable for. " "

But that was in response to a direct question from a reporter about whether the shootings would change the president's mind about gun control. I'd say that having been asked the question, the quote forms an unsurprising answer that is not particularly offensive in context.

A reporter tried to follow up: "Columbine, [the] Amish school shooting, now this, and a whole host of other gun issues brought into schools. That's not including guns on the streets in many urban areas and rural areas. Does there need to be some more restrictions? Does there need to be gun control in this country now?"

The press secretary's response: "The president -- as I said, if there are changes to the president's policy, then we will let you know."

Anyway, that's the story behind that quote. Perhaps it would be ideal if one large shooting changed the president's mind, but it would be unrealistic to expect that. (Particularly since the guns weren't legal anyway, so he could always make the argument that tighter gun laws won't make much difference to people who aren't even following the existing laws.)

Personally, I would be very wary of any publication where I heard that quote taken out of context. The writers at such a publication likely assume no one will look up the context and may well be misleading on other issues.

CC

Clarification: The guns were purchased legally. The fact that this guy destroyed the serial numbers MADE them illegal. Anyway, if that distinction matters to you, there, I've made it.

CC's Complex Feelings on Don Imus

I’m honestly torn on Don Imus. I think I dislike everybody involved in this mess excepting the Rutgers ladies themselves.

I’ll start with Imus. I find the “I was a firm believer in racial justice and political correctness until rap music changed my mind” argument ridiculous. (Note that this isn’t a quote from Imus, but what I see is the essence of his argument.) I wonder if Imus would rather be a racist than an old man who tried to sound current and couldn’t pull it off.

Also, people who claim that Imus’s right to free speech has been violated by his bosses not letting him say whatever he wants on a television show that his bosses pay for are idiots. Free Speech means the government can’t stop you from saying what you want. You can still get fired, people don’t have to like you, you can even get excommunicated.

But honestly, can we please find someone other than the Reverend Al Sharpton to represent what white people consider the majority African American view on these things?

I mean, I can’t deny that Al Sharpton knows something about the power of words to hurt people. Between the Tawana Brawley case and the Crown Heights Riot,
Sharpton has repeatedly shown himself to be a man willing to hurt lots of people in the name of his cause.

I don’t know if he was ever required to apologize to the family of the rabbinical student killed by the riot Sharpton worked hard to incite, but I do know that I find it weird that Sharpton feels that anyone who says anything against African-Americans ever owes him an apology and we all go along with that.

I mean, the ladies of Rutgers were hurt less by the initial comment than by the fact that people like Sharpton have worked so hard to keep it in the press. I’m torn on that one. Maybe a comment like that needs to be famous so we can all hold it up as a bad example for society. But does that help the originally insulted person more or hurt them more? I doubt there’s one answer.

It also leaves me wondering: At this point, what can Imus do?

He’s apologized over and over, he’s provided excuses, his reputation has been destroyed, he’s gotten fired.

And everyone is still mad at him.

It seems sort of an ironic end to a guy who became a celebrity through insulting people to be forever hated now for insulting the wrong people the wrong way.

And while any of us could have seen that "Nappy-headed Hos" would cause problems a mile away, what is offensive and to whom is a really complex subject. To take an example that's pretty personal to the UU blogosphere, pretty much all UUs have heard UUism referred to as a "cult" at some point, we know it's not so we ignore it. But when Robin Edgar heard his revelation referred to that way, it obviously really hurt him. Not condoing anything else he's done. But I do believe him that he heard it called a "cult" early on and that really hurt him. And as I mentioned above, there are a bunch of things Al Sharpton has done that I don't condone either.

I’m not a Don Imus fan. But, if, say, the Simpsons went to far and did something really, really over the top insulting Christianity and Christians started to pull up every example of Christians being the target of unkindnesss on that show, I would be pretty quick to defend their overall record as making fun of everyone but not really meaning any specific insult on any specific group.

Heck, I already defended South Park the same way when Scientologists were condemning it.

What Imus said was way out of line, whatever his motivations for saying it.

I guess I’m having trouble seeing why this is so different from similar incidents of entertainers making fun of similar groups.

Do we need to change the culture of entertaining ourselves by making fun of people?

As a major, major, Simpsons fan, I hope not.

But I don’t know.

CC

Random Thought on American Idol

Ever notice how when people vote for Haley because she's sexy, everyone says they are voting for her because of her looks, but when people vote for Sanjaya because he's sexy, everyone says they are voting for him because Sanjaya has immense personal charm?

IMHO, Sanjaya is usually far worse than Haley, but nobody talks to him like he's a talentless slut.

Melinda's still my girl.

CC

Bad! Bad Universalist!

I like this website.

Two odd conversations

1.
Easter Sunday, the Chalicefamily was out having brunch. (This is our Easter tradition. "Throwing eggs at houses" is not, no matter what Charlie says.)

At one point the Chalicerelative was talking about her church service. She then turned to me and said "What do Unitarians do for Easter?"

"Well," I said. "Some churches just have a regular service, some do a celebration of new life and springtime, but I'd say most do a service on Jesus, though the focus is a little different because we don't believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ."

(I probably should have said "most of us don't" but I was trying to keep things simple and sometimes "simple" and "inclusive" are impossible to both achieve at once.)

"I'll tell you something, Miss Sue*, I'll bet you most Christians don't believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ these days."

"That's funny, because I remember sitting in church saying 'I believe in..."

"Oh, I know we SAY it, but not many people believe it."

Now first of all, I don't believe that most Christians don't believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ, though I believe that her friends don't. And secondly, not having to recite creeds I don't believe in is one reason why I'm a UU.

But I didn't think saying either of those things would be as effective as just letting her words hang in the air.

So that's what I did.

2.

Today at work, I was walking through the office.

"Hey, c'mere!" One of the other paralegals said.

"What's up?"

"Larry Shiflett is the father of Anna Nicole's baby," she said.

"Who's that?"

"He's the photographer, not the guy on the birth certificate."

"Ah."

"I didn't want it to be either of them," she said. "I didn't want anybody to be the father."

Now, I'm pretty sure she meant that she didn't want any of the men who had come forward to be the father so the search pool would have had to be widened, but the idea of Anna Nicole Smith having an immaculate conception amused me all the way back to my office.

CC

*No, you cannot call me that. And don't put "Whatever you say, Miss Sue" in the comments. That's not funny, it's just irritating and if you have the impulse to do such things you may want to examine yourself for other irritating habits.

On some level, you know you want to buy this:

Cool, huh?

I sort of envy the people who wash windows in office buildings.

It looks like a fun job.

When I watch this, I can forgive the Black-Eyed-Peas for existing.

Church of the Water Cooler

If, perhaps you've only been a UU for fifteen minutes or so, it's remotely possible that you haven't heard enough "Yes, we have no religion" jokes about UUism for one lifetime.

Should this be the case, feel free to check out this admittedly nicely done UU World Parody.

I realize it's April Fools day and I'm supposed to laugh, but geez, I hate it when people go for the tired joke...

CC