Since Louise has called me on this:
Sex can produce kids. And can transmit disease. And it often produces emotional connections that are painful to break, or at least immensely complicating to one's life.
I realize that I'm stating the obvious, but to me those are important points.
I do have a bias toward not sleeping with someone you wouldn't breed from and making sure as many kids as possible are born in stable situations.
So yeah, I'm not totally in love with the key party concept, thought I am pretty hip to consenting adults doing what they want.
I'm more OK with it now than I would have been in the 1970's, when I would have wondered to what degree some of the women really were consenting given the societal position of women at the time.
And yeah, even among sexual diagrams more complicated than my own, I have a bias toward commitment and stability. Key parties did break up quite a few marriages.
That said, I'm analyzing my own thinking on the cocktail party and I've gotten it down to two main points.
1. When I was a little more free with my own favors, I would have found it quite odd if someone thought they had to include anyone I might be sleeping with at the time in a social gathering they invited me to. To me the obvious thing to do would be to ask my friend what the ettiquette is as far as she was concerned.
2. The polyamory thing I'm used to. She's my friend. It's the ummm...elf thing. Anybody curious can write me a private email and I will send you the guy's website.
Suffice to say, the front page includes the quote:
Elven currents strike me as not being particularly of an object, but the spaces BETWEEN objects. Not the emitter of forces...but the area of interplay between forces...so much so that one could think of that space between being it's own force..
So he's an elf. And, I think, a postmodernist because postmodernists are the only people I know who talk like that.
Oh, and later in the page he describes himself as an "3lf," with no apparent irony.
Postmodernist elf who uses leetspeak.
Sigh.
I'll likely invite him anyway.
CC
Sunday, July 01, 2007
He may be a UU at heart after all
In two weeks, we're throwing a little retro-50's cocktail party for my birthday. TheCSO and I were discussing it, and somehow the question of what we would do next year came up.
I said "Well, we could always go all 1970's and have a key party?"
"What's that?" he asked.
"Well..." I said, delighted that for once I possesed degenerate knowledge that he lacked, a reversal of the usual order of things. "I was totally kidding. It's a really tacky-middle class swinger party. The men all put their keys in a bowl and each woman takes a set of keys. Then the women go off and have sex with the men whose keys they've taken. It's very 1970's"
"Hmmm..." TheCSO said thoughtfully. "Sounds awfully heteronormative."
CC
I said "Well, we could always go all 1970's and have a key party?"
"What's that?" he asked.
"Well..." I said, delighted that for once I possesed degenerate knowledge that he lacked, a reversal of the usual order of things. "I was totally kidding. It's a really tacky-middle class swinger party. The men all put their keys in a bowl and each woman takes a set of keys. Then the women go off and have sex with the men whose keys they've taken. It's very 1970's"
"Hmmm..." TheCSO said thoughtfully. "Sounds awfully heteronormative."
CC
I don't recall Miss Manners addressing this one.
I'm having a cocktail party and inviting a polyamorous friend. I'm inviting her legal husband, whom I barely know but he is her husband. He has a lover that they seem to hang out with all the time whom I went to high school with, so I invited her.
My friend has another lover who, judging from his livejournal page, is oddly obsessed with elves. He's "otherkin" if you know what that means. I don't know the guy and have trouble believing he would gel with the rest of my friends, though that may be my own speciesism against elves showing.
I realize that when one invites people to a party, one is supposed to invite their significant others.
But goodness...
CC
My friend has another lover who, judging from his livejournal page, is oddly obsessed with elves. He's "otherkin" if you know what that means. I don't know the guy and have trouble believing he would gel with the rest of my friends, though that may be my own speciesism against elves showing.
I realize that when one invites people to a party, one is supposed to invite their significant others.
But goodness...
CC
Friday, June 29, 2007
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
More on the Resolution on Transgender Inclusion
Rev. Sean has a more complete explanation of what happened with the AIW on Transgender Inclusion.
Read it.
CC
Read it.
CC
A really amazing prayer
I share Gini Courter's self-admitted lack of a knack for prayer. (And I would love a copy of that five-point-prayer-outline she mentioned as I am called upon every now and then to say grace, either because I'm the only person at the table known to be religious or because the Christians at the table are morbidly curious.)
But well-written, beautiful prayers have great power to move me.
This one, by Rev. Marjorie Bowens-Wheatley, absolutely did and I thank Jess for bringing it to my attention.
CC
But well-written, beautiful prayers have great power to move me.
This one, by Rev. Marjorie Bowens-Wheatley, absolutely did and I thank Jess for bringing it to my attention.
CC
The Holy and the Angel Wash
One thing that bugs me about YRUU is the way we define "Worship." Y'all know I love my YRUU kids and am pretty slow to criticise them, but they do tend to define "Worship" as "hearing how great we are."
It's not.
An angel wash, for example, where one walks with one's eyes closed down a row of people, accepting hugs and kind words about oneself.
Is it pleasant? I don't know. A couple of years ago, somebody I liked a lot took me on a blindfolded walk right next to a busy road. I didn't get hit by a car, but I developed a thing about walking with my eyes closed. I won't do it, so I sat out of the angel wash.
But is it worship? In my opinion, which may not count for much, I recognize, it isn't.
The service of the living tradition is never something I've totally understood. Were it simply a memorial service for the ministers who had died in the last year, that would be a little sad for something in the middle of GA, but at least it could easily be about that which is holy as well.
I just don't see what's worshipful about a graduation ceremony, however staid. And when we make this ceremony about individual achievements rather than being about that which is greater than ourselves, isn't that essentially what we're doing?
Is it possible for worship to focus on an individual? Sure. A service for Martin Luther King day focused on Dr. King and the ways the holy worked through him seems like a good example. But that's a little different from reading the names of a list of people who graduated from seminary.
I don't object to there being a ceremony, I just wonder if a church service is the place for it.
CC
It's not.
An angel wash, for example, where one walks with one's eyes closed down a row of people, accepting hugs and kind words about oneself.
Is it pleasant? I don't know. A couple of years ago, somebody I liked a lot took me on a blindfolded walk right next to a busy road. I didn't get hit by a car, but I developed a thing about walking with my eyes closed. I won't do it, so I sat out of the angel wash.
But is it worship? In my opinion, which may not count for much, I recognize, it isn't.
The service of the living tradition is never something I've totally understood. Were it simply a memorial service for the ministers who had died in the last year, that would be a little sad for something in the middle of GA, but at least it could easily be about that which is holy as well.
I just don't see what's worshipful about a graduation ceremony, however staid. And when we make this ceremony about individual achievements rather than being about that which is greater than ourselves, isn't that essentially what we're doing?
Is it possible for worship to focus on an individual? Sure. A service for Martin Luther King day focused on Dr. King and the ways the holy worked through him seems like a good example. But that's a little different from reading the names of a list of people who graduated from seminary.
I don't object to there being a ceremony, I just wonder if a church service is the place for it.
CC
Lunchtime
There are two kinds of people in the world, those that want to face the restaurant and those who do not. Usually, I’m one of those who does not. But this time, the waitress at my usual lunch restaurant guided me to a table with only one place setting, and it was set up to have the diner face the room.
It’s not like moving my fork would have been effort exactly, but I sat down facing the room anyway. Which gave me an excellent view of the woman. She slipped into the restaurance carefully, making a furtive scan of the room as soon as her eyes had adjusted to the light. I pretended to be concentrating on the menu. But she wasn’t looking for me, anyway. She was crisp, efficient-looking, forty or so. Too stylish for accounting, too dowdy for marketing. Office manager, maybe?
Satisfied, she asked for a table, indicating the area near me, away from the windows. The waiter led her to a table ten feet away and she hurried forward. When she got to her place, she slipped off her jacket, revealing a slightly daring sundress beneath. I’d had no idea. I’m guessing that was the point. She laid the jacket across the back of her chair with a studied insouciance and walked toward the bathroom briskly.
A little part of me wanted to jump up, touch her arm and say “No, honey, that’s too businesslike. What you’re going for is a glide. Step at eleven and one. It will make your hips move just so. He will watch, I promise.”
Whoever he is.
I stayed in my chair and looked at the menu again. When she emerged from the bathroom, her makeup was a little too bright, like a teenager’s.
That was when I really started to speculate. Does she have a similarly efficient husband, I wondered? One who lays his jacket just so and wouldn’t notice a frivolity like makeup enough for her to bother to wear any? Did she buy the sundress last week, taking care to find one exciting enough that still looked staid under the white jacket?
The man who joins her is sort of funny-looking, but that’s not a surprise. The people who are looking for this sort of thing are rarely the cream of the crop, and the woman is no great beauty either. They awkwardly hold hands across the table. His pale blue shirt is lightly sweat-stained. He gets a hamburger, she gets a salad.
They lean toward one another and speak with great intensity. I imagine her reading a romance novel, noting down clever things to repeat to him. Does she tell all her friends how awful her husband is, just trying to justify what she’s up to? She thinks of her lunch date when a love song comes on the radio, doesn’t she? Did she name her goldfish after him, just so she can say his name?
I watched and I wondered and I thought about the hotel across from my office. Bright lipstick smeared on clean white sheets, more sweat in that blue shirt, the strap of a sundress pulled down over a freckled arm.
It’s been a long time, but I’ve felt what she’s feeling, the giddy rise of excitement, the desperate hope that he will call and put a pocket of adventure into an otherwise dull life. I am something of a romantic, and she does look like the sort of woman who is married to someone who sucks. I'm not completely unsympathetic to the ideal of trying re-enact Madame Bovary on a Monday afternoon in Fairfax County.
But still...
Well, good luck, honey. If this is what you want. Don't forget to splash water on your face when it's all over. That will take the glow out of your cheeks and wash the makeup off, which you need to do anyway. Can't have your co-workers talking.
I look down at my chicken sandwich and sigh, letting myself relive a few past thrills for a moment, but the effect just isn't there.
She's straightening his tie. From the outside, it all looks so banal.
CC
It’s not like moving my fork would have been effort exactly, but I sat down facing the room anyway. Which gave me an excellent view of the woman. She slipped into the restaurance carefully, making a furtive scan of the room as soon as her eyes had adjusted to the light. I pretended to be concentrating on the menu. But she wasn’t looking for me, anyway. She was crisp, efficient-looking, forty or so. Too stylish for accounting, too dowdy for marketing. Office manager, maybe?
Satisfied, she asked for a table, indicating the area near me, away from the windows. The waiter led her to a table ten feet away and she hurried forward. When she got to her place, she slipped off her jacket, revealing a slightly daring sundress beneath. I’d had no idea. I’m guessing that was the point. She laid the jacket across the back of her chair with a studied insouciance and walked toward the bathroom briskly.
A little part of me wanted to jump up, touch her arm and say “No, honey, that’s too businesslike. What you’re going for is a glide. Step at eleven and one. It will make your hips move just so. He will watch, I promise.”
Whoever he is.
I stayed in my chair and looked at the menu again. When she emerged from the bathroom, her makeup was a little too bright, like a teenager’s.
That was when I really started to speculate. Does she have a similarly efficient husband, I wondered? One who lays his jacket just so and wouldn’t notice a frivolity like makeup enough for her to bother to wear any? Did she buy the sundress last week, taking care to find one exciting enough that still looked staid under the white jacket?
The man who joins her is sort of funny-looking, but that’s not a surprise. The people who are looking for this sort of thing are rarely the cream of the crop, and the woman is no great beauty either. They awkwardly hold hands across the table. His pale blue shirt is lightly sweat-stained. He gets a hamburger, she gets a salad.
They lean toward one another and speak with great intensity. I imagine her reading a romance novel, noting down clever things to repeat to him. Does she tell all her friends how awful her husband is, just trying to justify what she’s up to? She thinks of her lunch date when a love song comes on the radio, doesn’t she? Did she name her goldfish after him, just so she can say his name?
I watched and I wondered and I thought about the hotel across from my office. Bright lipstick smeared on clean white sheets, more sweat in that blue shirt, the strap of a sundress pulled down over a freckled arm.
It’s been a long time, but I’ve felt what she’s feeling, the giddy rise of excitement, the desperate hope that he will call and put a pocket of adventure into an otherwise dull life. I am something of a romantic, and she does look like the sort of woman who is married to someone who sucks. I'm not completely unsympathetic to the ideal of trying re-enact Madame Bovary on a Monday afternoon in Fairfax County.
But still...
Well, good luck, honey. If this is what you want. Don't forget to splash water on your face when it's all over. That will take the glow out of your cheeks and wash the makeup off, which you need to do anyway. Can't have your co-workers talking.
I look down at my chicken sandwich and sigh, letting myself relive a few past thrills for a moment, but the effect just isn't there.
She's straightening his tie. From the outside, it all looks so banal.
CC
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
CC and theCSO:Talkin' like hippies"
Ever since CC came back from GA, theCSO and she have been inserting the phrase "in right relation" into our conversation as much as possible.
Probably "I don't feel in right relation with the number of cats in this bed," was the funniest this particular running joke is going to get, but if somebody says something better, I will report it.
TheCSO has been on a kick that our marital arguments should be stated in the form of "I-messages." CC, while stipulating the therapeutic value of this, doesn't like to do it because she thinks it sounds stupid. She has proffered the compromise that she will use i-messages if theCSO will use "in right relations" whenever possible in said arguments.
He hasn't agreed yet.
CC
Probably "I don't feel in right relation with the number of cats in this bed," was the funniest this particular running joke is going to get, but if somebody says something better, I will report it.
TheCSO has been on a kick that our marital arguments should be stated in the form of "I-messages." CC, while stipulating the therapeutic value of this, doesn't like to do it because she thinks it sounds stupid. She has proffered the compromise that she will use i-messages if theCSO will use "in right relations" whenever possible in said arguments.
He hasn't agreed yet.
CC
Sunday, June 24, 2007
After all this time, GA finally starts getting interesting
I didn't have much to say on Moral Values for a Pluralistic Society, because, well, it's all about talking rather than doing.
And there was no new Statement of Conscience to vote on, not that I'm complaining.
All of the candidates elected were running unopposed.
So GA has been quite short of actual administrative business.
But finally, with the responsive resolutions, we're getting some action. Ok, it's pretty-lame-unless-you-did-a-lot-of-Model-UN-in-college action, but hell, I did and I'll take it.
Best of all, my source's explanation for it makes the actions I described during my previous post make sense.
To review, and to clarify my last post, a few hours ago, the body voted in a
"Pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act with Transgender Inclusion and Protection,"
Action of Immediate Witness.
It turns out that that Action of Immediate Witness was originally TWO AIWs:
1. One about Transsexuality, and being welcoming to transsexuals and affirming out support for transexuals, which included our condemning employment discrimination against transsexuals.
2. One reaffirming the body's support for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act for gays and lesbians, something we had voted in 13 years ago.
According to my source, the Comission on Social Witness in one of those back room meetings UUs claim to be against, decided to COMBINE the two marginally related resolutions into a resolution about adding transsexuals to ENDA, but, you know, not requiring UNITARIANS to be nice to them or anything.
The guy who asked that question of the UUA staff was WANTING the UUA staff to respond as they did. The response they gave underscored the point that the AIW we were voting on was essentially a toothless reiteration of something we'd voted in long ago.
The responsive resolution bringing the question of the CONGREGATIONS not practicing discrimination against transgender persons, and indeed being WELCOMING of transgender persons is coming to the floor.
I will keep you posted.
If you're reading this from Portland, please grab your delegate card and head back to the plenary.
And PLEASE raise your delegate card and vote for welcoming and an AIW that actually has some meaning.
CC
And there was no new Statement of Conscience to vote on, not that I'm complaining.
All of the candidates elected were running unopposed.
So GA has been quite short of actual administrative business.
But finally, with the responsive resolutions, we're getting some action. Ok, it's pretty-lame-unless-you-did-a-lot-of-Model-UN-in-college action, but hell, I did and I'll take it.
Best of all, my source's explanation for it makes the actions I described during my previous post make sense.
To review, and to clarify my last post, a few hours ago, the body voted in a
"Pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act with Transgender Inclusion and Protection,"
Action of Immediate Witness.
It turns out that that Action of Immediate Witness was originally TWO AIWs:
1. One about Transsexuality, and being welcoming to transsexuals and affirming out support for transexuals, which included our condemning employment discrimination against transsexuals.
2. One reaffirming the body's support for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act for gays and lesbians, something we had voted in 13 years ago.
According to my source, the Comission on Social Witness in one of those back room meetings UUs claim to be against, decided to COMBINE the two marginally related resolutions into a resolution about adding transsexuals to ENDA, but, you know, not requiring UNITARIANS to be nice to them or anything.
The guy who asked that question of the UUA staff was WANTING the UUA staff to respond as they did. The response they gave underscored the point that the AIW we were voting on was essentially a toothless reiteration of something we'd voted in long ago.
The responsive resolution bringing the question of the CONGREGATIONS not practicing discrimination against transgender persons, and indeed being WELCOMING of transgender persons is coming to the floor.
I will keep you posted.
If you're reading this from Portland, please grab your delegate card and head back to the plenary.
And PLEASE raise your delegate card and vote for welcoming and an AIW that actually has some meaning.
CC
Point of Clarification
"Were you in the plenary?" I asked. I was sitting outside the exhibition hall, charging my laptop and getting in a little Kingdom of Loathing before the next workshop. I had called over a minister of whom I'm fond.
"Yes," she said.
"When that person asked if the UUA would keep working on an issue even if the body voted it down, and the UUA folks loudly cheered that they would, did that happen like I thought it happened?"
"You mean, was it rehearsed?"
"No, I did the UUA folks just say, in effect, 'Even if the body votes that they don't care about this thing, we're going to keep working on it."
"Sort of, but the body obviously did care," she said.
"But the question assumed that the body didn't care. It disturbed me that even if we didn't care, they were still going to work on it."
"I can understand that, but I doubt they would have responded that way to an assembly that less obviously cared about it."
I hope she's right.
CC
"Yes," she said.
"When that person asked if the UUA would keep working on an issue even if the body voted it down, and the UUA folks loudly cheered that they would, did that happen like I thought it happened?"
"You mean, was it rehearsed?"
"No, I did the UUA folks just say, in effect, 'Even if the body votes that they don't care about this thing, we're going to keep working on it."
"Sort of, but the body obviously did care," she said.
"But the question assumed that the body didn't care. It disturbed me that even if we didn't care, they were still going to work on it."
"I can understand that, but I doubt they would have responded that way to an assembly that less obviously cared about it."
I hope she's right.
CC
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Is the Koran a source for UUs?
There was a very interesting topic brought up in the commission on appraisal discussion of the seven principles this morning, and one that I haven't totally made up my mind on:
Should the Koran (Or the teachings of Islam) be specifically listed in the Seven Principles as one of the sources UUism draws from?
I'm torn on this question. I don't draw really any of my spirituality from Islam and I don't really know any UUs who have told me they do. At the same time, if there is a significant contingent of UUs who feel influenced by it, I don't at all object to putting it there.
I think a stronger argument could be made for Buddhism.
(FWIW, one should assume right now that both Islam and Buddhism are included in the general phrasing "Wisdom from the world's religions which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life," but they aren't specifically mentioned by name.)
So, any thoughts?
CC
Should the Koran (Or the teachings of Islam) be specifically listed in the Seven Principles as one of the sources UUism draws from?
I'm torn on this question. I don't draw really any of my spirituality from Islam and I don't really know any UUs who have told me they do. At the same time, if there is a significant contingent of UUs who feel influenced by it, I don't at all object to putting it there.
I think a stronger argument could be made for Buddhism.
(FWIW, one should assume right now that both Islam and Buddhism are included in the general phrasing "Wisdom from the world's religions which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life," but they aren't specifically mentioned by name.)
So, any thoughts?
CC
Crowding, Drinking and the Biological Superiority of UUs
A bit of rest has been forced upon me since the workshop I wanted to go to this session was too full for my or the fire marshall's comfort. This certainly has been a crowded GA. One of the Northwesterners at my table at lunch said
"Those folks in Boston just don't understand how vital a movement we are."
I didn't know that that was true, but it is interesting how popular a GA where we aren't voting on much of interest that is held in such an annoying corner of the country to get to would be so popular.
My vote is to have all future GAs in the Midwest, though.
___
I went out to a very nice bar with some of my fellow bloggers last night. Can't say we solved all the problems of UUism, but we did find a funky bar and have a wonderful conversation. The blogger dinner was also really great. It was so cool to meet Kim after all these years, though I ended up a table away.
__
The same woman at my lunch table I refer to above said she'd read a study that said UUs were "poor screeners," meaning that we took in more information about the world around us than people of other faiths and thus lived in a different world from people of other faiths. She was very proud of us, though she allowed as to how this characteristic might make us more distractible.
Has anyone heard such a study?
CC
"Those folks in Boston just don't understand how vital a movement we are."
I didn't know that that was true, but it is interesting how popular a GA where we aren't voting on much of interest that is held in such an annoying corner of the country to get to would be so popular.
My vote is to have all future GAs in the Midwest, though.
___
I went out to a very nice bar with some of my fellow bloggers last night. Can't say we solved all the problems of UUism, but we did find a funky bar and have a wonderful conversation. The blogger dinner was also really great. It was so cool to meet Kim after all these years, though I ended up a table away.
__
The same woman at my lunch table I refer to above said she'd read a study that said UUs were "poor screeners," meaning that we took in more information about the world around us than people of other faiths and thus lived in a different world from people of other faiths. She was very proud of us, though she allowed as to how this characteristic might make us more distractible.
Has anyone heard such a study?
CC
Blogger boozin'
I now know about what has to be one of the niftier bars in Portland.
If anybody's going back, text me. I'm not sure I want to leave Portland without having another Pear Brandy.
CC
If anybody's going back, text me. I'm not sure I want to leave Portland without having another Pear Brandy.
CC
Friday, June 22, 2007
Things that didn't speak to me, things that did.
Hmmm... What to say about the Sermon at the Service of the Living Tradition. It's style brought to mind a quotation from Robertson Davies when he was talking about Vladimir Nabokov:
Many authors write like amateur blacksmiths making their first horseshoe; the clank of the anvil, the stench of the scorched leather apron, the sparks and the cursing are palpable, and this appeals to those who rank "sincerity" very high. Nabokov is more like a master swordsmith making a fine blade; nothing is amiss, nothing is too much, there is no fuss, and the finished product must be handled with great care, or it will cut you badly.
Suffice to say, Nabokov has nothing to fear from the writers of the SLT sermon. The anvil clanks are still ringing off the walls.
But earlier today, I actually had a genuine spiritual experience in a GA workshop, something that I would have thought impossible had I been asked about the idea over breakfast.
I attended a workshop given by Doug Muder and Meg Barnhouse on spiritual writing. If you follow that link, you'll see that Meg has the worst website ever. But I learned quite a bit from what she and Doug had to say.
Near the end, Barnhouse pulled out her guitar and sung a well-known song of hers called "All will be well."
She had the audience sing the refrain:
All will be well,
All will be well
All manner of things
Will be well.
I don't know. Something about the song, and indeed the act of singing it back to Meg, really spoke to me.
Now, I am not a crier, but I really think I cried internally in a sense, and I got a sense of peace with the world that is still with me 12 hours later.
I found myself thinking of my friend Jana-who-creates, who recently told me what happened when she took her son to Shrek 2. At the end of the movie, when Eddie Murphy's donkey character(who had been turned into a horse) is, despite his protests, turned back into a donkey, her son burst into loud, racking, sobs, culminating with him screaming "But he doesn't WANT to be a donkey! He wants to be a HORSE!" to the whole theater.
Sitting there as the song died away, that wasn't the emotion that I felt, but what I felt was on that level of intensity and involvement.
It rocked, kids.
CC
Many authors write like amateur blacksmiths making their first horseshoe; the clank of the anvil, the stench of the scorched leather apron, the sparks and the cursing are palpable, and this appeals to those who rank "sincerity" very high. Nabokov is more like a master swordsmith making a fine blade; nothing is amiss, nothing is too much, there is no fuss, and the finished product must be handled with great care, or it will cut you badly.
Suffice to say, Nabokov has nothing to fear from the writers of the SLT sermon. The anvil clanks are still ringing off the walls.
But earlier today, I actually had a genuine spiritual experience in a GA workshop, something that I would have thought impossible had I been asked about the idea over breakfast.
I attended a workshop given by Doug Muder and Meg Barnhouse on spiritual writing. If you follow that link, you'll see that Meg has the worst website ever. But I learned quite a bit from what she and Doug had to say.
Near the end, Barnhouse pulled out her guitar and sung a well-known song of hers called "All will be well."
She had the audience sing the refrain:
All will be well,
All will be well
All manner of things
Will be well.
I don't know. Something about the song, and indeed the act of singing it back to Meg, really spoke to me.
Now, I am not a crier, but I really think I cried internally in a sense, and I got a sense of peace with the world that is still with me 12 hours later.
I found myself thinking of my friend Jana-who-creates, who recently told me what happened when she took her son to Shrek 2. At the end of the movie, when Eddie Murphy's donkey character(who had been turned into a horse) is, despite his protests, turned back into a donkey, her son burst into loud, racking, sobs, culminating with him screaming "But he doesn't WANT to be a donkey! He wants to be a HORSE!" to the whole theater.
Sitting there as the song died away, that wasn't the emotion that I felt, but what I felt was on that level of intensity and involvement.
It rocked, kids.
CC
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Service of the Living Tradition
If you watch the Service of the Living Tradition on the net, skip the
opening speech.
opening speech.
I'll summarize the useful information in two points.
1. Don't be assholes during the service.
2. The lady who spoke doesn't know what the word "fulsome" means.
Point one was repeated for by my watch fifteen minutes.
Point two was really the only interesting part.
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
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
GA so far
I'm not a fan of Portland in general, and I am, with god as my witness, NEVER making hotel reservations through the UUA system again. (Kids, I am like a HALF MILE from the subway and literally several miles from the convention center. Whoever made the decision that GA hotels choudl be chosen based on their use of environmentally safe cleaning products rather than their closeness to the convention center is a tool.)
But so far the exhibit hall has art that I actually might buy and the registration process was WAY smoother than last year. So that's good. Will likely report agian post-blogger hoedown.
CC
Ps. I'm no fabulous beauty myself, mind you, but I have to say that the UU Polyamorists seriously need to improve their marketing efforts. The same circa-sixty-years-old-aging-hippie who manned the table most of the time last year is back.
But so far the exhibit hall has art that I actually might buy and the registration process was WAY smoother than last year. So that's good. Will likely report agian post-blogger hoedown.
CC
Ps. I'm no fabulous beauty myself, mind you, but I have to say that the UU Polyamorists seriously need to improve their marketing efforts. The same circa-sixty-years-old-aging-hippie who manned the table most of the time last year is back.
So far, Portland doesn't impress me.
It reminds me of New Orleans,which is not particularly a compliment.
One has to work really hard to find a place in this country big enough to host a convention that is still a major bitch to get to from Washington DC.
Portland is apparently just such a place. I came through Phoenix, kids.
I got going late, and in a true injustice, had to fly here stone cold sober. (Fun fact about CC: She's slightly claustrophobic and rarely flies without some form of assistance, usually alcohol.)
Anyway, I haven't eaten since dinner yesterday and will likely go do something about that. Will show up at the convention later. If you want to hang out, text me or just leave a note up on the message board.
CC
One has to work really hard to find a place in this country big enough to host a convention that is still a major bitch to get to from Washington DC.
Portland is apparently just such a place. I came through Phoenix, kids.
I got going late, and in a true injustice, had to fly here stone cold sober. (Fun fact about CC: She's slightly claustrophobic and rarely flies without some form of assistance, usually alcohol.)
Anyway, I haven't eaten since dinner yesterday and will likely go do something about that. Will show up at the convention later. If you want to hang out, text me or just leave a note up on the message board.
CC
CC picks a ridiculous time to be too excited to sleep
I'm often like this when I travel, which is why if I'm driving a long distance to your house, I will often show up earlier than you expect. If I were driving, I would just get in the car now.
Alas, I'm flying, and early enough that taking a sedative now really isn't an option.
Ah well.
In other news, I wonder what it means for theCSO's and my personal and relationship development that we woke up early enough to have marital involvement this morning, and ended up in a different part of the house so as not to disturb the basset hound soundly sleeping in the bed.
This may be a southern thing.
CC
Alas, I'm flying, and early enough that taking a sedative now really isn't an option.
Ah well.
In other news, I wonder what it means for theCSO's and my personal and relationship development that we woke up early enough to have marital involvement this morning, and ended up in a different part of the house so as not to disturb the basset hound soundly sleeping in the bed.
This may be a southern thing.
CC
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Poking at an Old Enemy of the Chaliceblog
I've made no secret that my least favorite Senator is Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska.
And it is in that spirit that I point you to this article.
CC
And it is in that spirit that I point you to this article.
CC
Monday, June 18, 2007
Random notes on a Monday Morning
1. Posting will ideally be light until I leave for GA, at least, unless someone says something REALLY good. But seriously, I'm trying to get lots of work stuff done before I leave.
2. Nancy Drew really rocked mightily. It was reminiscent of Clueless, not as smart, but I actually enjoyed it more. As far as I can tell, the "ironic, but sweet, you know she's annoying but you love her, my goodness this movie is smart and fun and sweet and goofy and a tiny bit edgy in its way, but all in balance" tone is damn near impossible for a movie to pull off and they manage it. I honestly can't remember when I've had a better time at the theater, and I desperatly want a notebook with a little felt cover with little felt letters reading "clues" stitched on it.
3. My bowling has actually gotten worse since I started playing Wii bowling.
4. I haven't mentioned this, but two weeks ago I bought an Igallop. I got it on wicked, wicked sale and I ride it all the time.
CC
2. Nancy Drew really rocked mightily. It was reminiscent of Clueless, not as smart, but I actually enjoyed it more. As far as I can tell, the "ironic, but sweet, you know she's annoying but you love her, my goodness this movie is smart and fun and sweet and goofy and a tiny bit edgy in its way, but all in balance" tone is damn near impossible for a movie to pull off and they manage it. I honestly can't remember when I've had a better time at the theater, and I desperatly want a notebook with a little felt cover with little felt letters reading "clues" stitched on it.
3. My bowling has actually gotten worse since I started playing Wii bowling.
4. I haven't mentioned this, but two weeks ago I bought an Igallop. I got it on wicked, wicked sale and I ride it all the time.
CC
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Mid-Movie Movie Review
Nancy Drew is so much fun.
The actress playing her is doing a brilliant job of being annoying in
exactly the way I remember being annoying at that age.
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
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
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
Friday, June 15, 2007
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
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
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
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Check out the huge freaking rainstorm
CC
Hoping the power comes back on because she has serious stuff to do.
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.
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.
Friday, June 08, 2007
Thursday, June 07, 2007
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
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
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
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
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.
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.
Monday, June 04, 2007
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
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
Saturday, June 02, 2007
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
Friday, June 01, 2007
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.
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
These folks are quite unpretentious and good friends, so simple is OK.
Any suggestions?
CC
Thursday, May 31, 2007
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
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
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
Monday, May 28, 2007
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
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
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
Friday, May 25, 2007
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
CC
Thursday, May 24, 2007
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
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
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
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
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
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
Monday, May 21, 2007
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 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
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
Saturday, May 19, 2007
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
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
Friday, May 18, 2007
Thursday, May 17, 2007
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
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
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
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
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.
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
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
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
Monday, May 14, 2007
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
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
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
Sunday, May 13, 2007
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
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 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
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
Saturday, May 12, 2007
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
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
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
Thursday, May 10, 2007
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
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.
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.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
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
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
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
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
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
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
Monday, May 07, 2007
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.
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.
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
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.
Wanna go?
CC
Personal to Jana-who-creates: I've already got you and the guys down.
Saturday, May 05, 2007
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
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
Friday, May 04, 2007
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
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
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
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
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
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)