Blaming the term "victim"

Someone whom I was talking to in a therapeutic capacity called me a "second circle victim*" of someone else's sketchy behavior recently, and that has been very much on my mind. I knew what the person I was talking to meant, but I found that my dislike of being called a victim has not lessened in the years since someone has done it.

Though I've been through a few things that might justify my use of the term, and far better justify it than these recent events, I've always hated the idea.

It's not so much that I don't want people to feel sorry for me, though I don't. I'm most concerned that my status as a "victim" in some people's eyes will leak into my self-perception and become part of the way I myself view the situation.

And I really don't want that.

As far as I can tell some 99 percent of the evil in this world is committed by people who view themselves, sometimes rightly**, as the victim of previous evils. To get the Godwin's law violation out of the way, the 1940's era Germans were pretty directly victimized by the treaty of Versailles. For another political example, the French Monarchy really had put the middle class and poor through quite a lot before they struck back with the reign of terror***.

Our personal lives are rife with examples like these. In crim law, it came up that some huge percentage of murders between two lower-middle-class and poor men essentially start as arguments and escalate until someone pulls a weapon. Then the loser dies and the winner goes to jail. No doubt both sides would say they were the victims of the other guy's actions. In interviews where the charge was "attempted murder" that is almost always the case.

On 9-11, America became a victim and our victimization has justified what is to me an appalling number of unreasonable and out-of-proportion responses. The line between terrorist and "freedom fighter striking back against and oppressive and threatening government" itself is, of course, entirely dependent on perspective, but I'm more interested in applying these ideas to my own life.

If I have a busy life and a friend has a busy life and she's fifteen minutes late for lunch and that throws off my schedule a bit and it starts an argument, am I the victim of her inconsiderate nature or is she the victim of my needlessly critical one? We probably see both as true. But will either of us actually "teach the other a lesson" if we make it into an argument?

Are there cases where a 100 percent evil person inflicts harm on a 100 percent innocent person? There are a few. But I bet that those people whom we see as evil are as certain as any other victim that they were perfectly justified in responding to the way they were provoked and that they really are innocent of any serious wrongdoing. John Wayne Gacy's famous comment “I should never have been convicted of anything more serious than running a cemetery without a license.” comes to mind here. That in itself was probably sarcastic, but Gacy was vocal that he had been both the victim of child abuse and of an unfair media that was out to get him.

People tend to talk about the Stonewall riots, where gay New Yorkers fought back against a police raid, like they were a great thing. My oft-expressed dislike of police raids notwithstanding, I still maintain that mobbing outside the Village Voice and threatening to burn it down because the morning's edition made fun of the previous night's riots is not a good thing. Even when victims are in some sense justified in responding, their response is almost always out of proportion to the initial offense.

I find it especially scary when a person feels that they've been mistreated by an entire group, or their group has been mistreated by an entire group. At this point, I'd say every group in the world has arguably mistreated every other group that they have met in some way or another. In an age of rising political snark and rising unemployment, the guy who shot up the Tennessee Valley UU Church provided no justification for doing so that isn't available to millions of Americans. And he did it because of what he felt liberals had done to him. (OK, I still think he mostly did it to ruin his ex-wife's life, but I will accept the manifesto's explanation for his actions for the sake of argument.)

Bringing it again back to the personal, I've had to explain to both Christians and Atheists that the Simpsons doesn't have anything against them and does not have a bias toward the other group. I'm fairly certain that I was not successful and that the two Christians and one atheist that I've discussed this with continue to see their beliefs as victims of unfair treatment by Bart, Lisa, Homer, Marge, Maggie and perhaps especially Ned Flanders.

So anyway, when I see that "victim" is a cherished thing to be, in society and perhaps especially in UUism, I worry. The very concept of "victim" seems to justify retribution, and again much of the time retribution is out of scale with the initial offense. I don't think in any example in this entire post could it be said that the perpetrators learned the lesson they were supposed to from the victim's response****. At the very least, when a victim, justified or not, strikes back in vengeance, it adds more pain to a world that has too much already.


CC
who at one point got to hear all about the perpetrator of the above-mentioned sketchy behavior's actions and how none of them were his fault and how unfairly he has been treated by everyone since. This person has been a victim of the person who claims to be a victim of his whom he seems to feel blew the initial incident out of proportion, of his professional association and of the judgments of others and their nasty reading of his innocent behavior. Hearing all this has not made the victim role more appealing.


* When someone behaves badly, they have victims. But the behavior also tends to affect other people who are simply around the situation negatively.

** I don't have the perspective to provide a modern example of a group who think they are victims but are wrong, though people who claim that the government is trying to destroy Christmas come to mind, but I think it's safe to say that the medieval Christians who used to murder Jews since Jews must be poisoning Christians since Jews never seemed to get the plague are a safe example. Now, of course, we know that it was the hygiene practices of the Jews that kept them safer. Queen Elizabeth's resolve to take a monthly bath was unusually fastidious for her time.


***And for what it's worth, Marie Antoinette's hats and shoes did not bankrupt the French government, helping pay for the American Revolution did. So next time you're tempted to hold her up as a symbol of decadence and greed, consider that she quite literally died for the Founding Fathers' cause.


**** War reparations, ostentatious French people, unreasonable police raids, terrorism, unemployment, the election of liberals, tardiness and child abuse continue to this day.

Odd conversations

Waitress: And what would you like to drink?

Me: I dunno, do you guys have any special drinks you do? Something
kinda sweet and fruity?

Waitress: No, not really. Since we're a brewery restaurant, people
usually order beer. We have a bar, but we don't do much in the way of
weird cocktails.

Me: ok, how about a 'sex on the beach'?

Waitress: Sure! But our bartender had his own special way of doing
those. I'm sure you will like it. It's really good.

Me: That's fine. Thanks.

Sent from my iPhone

Don't you hate it when...

You see something that you know would be the perfect gift for
SOMEBODY, yet you can't think of anyone in your life who would
appreciate it?

Yeah, that's how Jana-who-Creates and I felt about this naked lady bong.

CC's favorite little kid book

is now online.


So read it to your favorite small person before someone comes and takes it down.

CC

My day started with a bad dream

and has included dogs being difficult, a helpful-if-draining conversation and no lunch as of yet.

I got nothin', kids.

So go check out Monkey Mind's post about a piece Killing the Buddha did about ways to be a bad meditator.

As I've mentioned here many times, I am the worst meditator ever and most of the time I try end up thinking about sex or falling asleep. But I am very aware of the benefits of meditation and keep intending to set up a regular practice schedule.

In other news, a religious person who doesn't know me well said "I will be sending blessings your way...I don't know how you feel about that" to me the morning and I responded "I never turn them down."

This is interesting to me because the response was more or less automatic. Used to, my wealthy grandmother would ask if I needed money. This was at the point in my post-collegiate life where I lived on like $10,000-$20,000 a year. I didn't NEED money in the sense that a child dying of typhoid in Africa did, and pride made me disinclined to say "yes, I need money."

But at the same time, yeah, I probably did need the money.

So when she would ask me that dreaded question, I started saying "I never turn down money." This denied her the emotional satisfaction of being my savior, but her money got her plenty of kowtowing from other people and if my response bothered her, she never let on and she still gave me a couple of hundred bucks.

So probably needed but perhaps not exactly wanted money and unasked-for and not-really-believed-in blessings from a person of goodwill elicit essentially the same response from me.

There's something to sit on a pillow and think about. (See, I suck at meditation.)

CC

Ps. Headed on a trip with Jana-who-Creates this weekend, so updates will either be non-existent or constant. But I really did learn my lesson about posting photo essays.

Pps. That my womb has forever been empty as one of those big cones at the science museum where you can roll a quarter and watch it slowly spin down indicates that this will probably never be an issue for me, but if I do ever have grandchildren, I will just say "Hey, have some money, and if you don't need it, give it to someone who does."

First brick on a long path

The Governor of Maryland signed that SWAT Transparency Bill

CC

Wait, what?

Could somebody explain this to me?

I mean, seriously...

CC

So funny, so true

Trekkies Bash New Star Trek Film As 'Fun, Watchable'

If you can't see the embeded version, check it out here.

Another Sunday morning at home.

I really disagree with some decisions the board made recently on a matter I take seriously. I get that reasonable people can see situations differently, and while I don't agree with the way the board and a committee within the church approached this one and am particularly unhappy that the chair of said committee is now up for the board, the church is my community and I feel like I should be a part of it.

Katy-the-Wise points out that simply sitting in the congregation, week after week, as the voice of the loyal opposition is a powerful thing, and in theory I get that. But I just don't feel like I have the strength to do it. There have been a couple of Sunday mornings when I've dressed for church, been all ready to go and then not been able to leave the house.

There are plenty of other UU churches in my area. I could just pick another one and on several levels I would be happier there. Actually I know right which one I would attend.

But I've made commitment after commitment to this community. And it doesn't help that we are short of YRUU leaders at my current church as it is. I love my friends and my YRUU kids.

Different levels of community suggest different levels of commitment. I'm not moving every time Fairfax County does something I don't like, which is often as far as their parks and recreation decisions go, and the same time if I were a member of, say, a book club and they made crucial decision that I didn't really like, I'd probably just quit.

Church is kinda in between.

TheCSO's take is that "there is no non-Pyrrhic victory here" and that's true, though not terribly helpful. Actually, I'm not sure that the concept of "victory" even applies.

My inclination is to accept that even when I'm right, I don't necessarily win, go back to church and suck it up. Longtime readers will recall that when my Presby parents church fired a minister basically because she was gay, that's what my folks did and decades later their church is better for it. The church does a great deal with outreach to gays in the community and seems to be trying to atone for what I view as their sins.

Score one for the Katy-the-Wise approach.

But I'm having a really hard time doing that.

Thoughts welcome.

And, of course, those who are familiar with what happened and wish to discuss it in specific detail may email me.

CC

Meet Ginsburg

Ginsburg was thrown down a flight of stairs by a drug dealer in Baltimore. Then she was in a shelter that might have killed her. Before her injection, she was taken by a dog rescue based in Virginia. We fostered her for the dog rescue, loved her and adopted her.

Now she sleeps next to me as I type this.

She walks with a limp due to the fall down the stairs but she's in no pain. If she ever needs the surgery, she will have it.

As I listen to her soft snores, I am the farthest I've ever been from an existential crisis. The effect of my life as measured on a scale that includes heat death of the universe is nothing. But we have so much power to make the lives of others, even four legged others with a limp, suck less.

Ginsburg is snoring, and this very second, that's all I need.

CC

Above and beyond the call of marital duty

I have written before about how I really really admire that Dolly Parton is such a good human being that she can't even say anything about Jolene, she just praises Jolene's fine qualities and asks Jolene to leave her man alone.



Similarly and even more significantly given that this situation is non-fictional, I have always had great respect for how Jackie O. refused to invite Arthur Miller to a state dinner because she felt he mistreated Marilyn Monroe.

The sheer decency of that still stuns me.



Now, again, what Jackie O. did and what Dolly sings of are, as far as I am concerned, stunningly awesome examples of human behavior. That said, such treatment is not to be EXPECTED when you're sleeping with someone else's husband and have humiliated his wife on a national stage. That the wife would be ticked at you should not be a surprise.

Which brings me to how John Edwards' ex-mistress and the writer of this article talk about Elizabeth Edwards.

Apparently, Elizabeth Edwards wrote that Hunter was "pathetic"*, which on the grand scale of things women have said about chicks that screwed their husbands is extremely mild. She says that Hunter persued him, which I believe, and that she meant nothing to John, which I also believe.

Hunter is wounded, WOUNDED, she tells you, and is firing back in all sorts of dramatic ways, essentially turning the situation into one of those Paternity Test Episodes of the Maury Povich show, except on a national scale. And we all know how those paternity test episodes tend to turn out** If there is a God of shenanigans, I pray that Hunter's results will be similarly exciting. Like if her baby's dad was also the father of Anna Nicole Smith's kid. That would be awesome.

CC
who thinks low things about people who always blame the third person in an infidelity situation and has, for the record, complained about John Edwards plenty. I hold Edwards responsible for his behavior, even though I think I can understand the "wanted to fuck someone who wasn't dying" motivation. I just also hold Hunter responsible for her actions.


*IMHO, consentual kinkiness/polyamory aside, sleeping with a married man is by definition rather pathetic and of the women I know who have slept with married guys, I don't think any of them would entirely deny that although some of them still don't regret their choices.

The whole act smacks of either "This man is so much more impressive than I am that sleeping with him will validate me" or "I can't deal with a bona-fide relationship right now, so I'm involved in something that is pretty much doomed from day one"

**Maury: "Ummm... Amber... We tested all three guys you said you were sleeping with, and NONE of them are the father of your child. Could there have been a fourth man in your life?

Amber: Oh, HIM!

I have heard people whine

that one cannot do anything with twitter and it's stupid and you can't express a good idea in 140 characters and it will contribute to the general ADDness of our culture, and... and...

I give you twitter short story writer Arjun Basu.

To quote Forrest Gump, also known for brevity:

"that's all I have to say about that."



CC

Ps. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" = 73 characters.

In other rich person news...

I would really like to see this play

Indeed, I would be willing to serve post-theatre omelets and desserts at my house to those willing to see it with me. Or we could just have drinks in the city, which would be logistically easier.


Let me know. Email is probably easier.

Sure, we criticize the rich for not giving enough, but what about ourselves?

During the epic argument over whether UUs liked people who have money too much or not enough that we had at Peacebang a couple years back, I responded to some of the more radical "rich people are evil" arguments by pointing out that the average household income in America is usually pegged at something like $40,000* and that if your household makes more than the average income in the United States, then clearly you were rich and should be giving the excess to the poor.

Upon being challenged that money meant different amounts different places, I pointed out that, worldwide, about half of all people have running water. If you have running water, you're rich.

Oh yeah, and if you were making choices that improved your lifestyle but lowered your income, shouldn't you really be making more profitable choices and giving the money away?**

TheCSO and I do make more than the average household income. We have running water and we do not give all our excess to the poor. I admitted as much throughout the thread, emphasizing that I was making a point that the rich aren't a "they," the rich are an "us."

Anyway, there's an article in Salon making a softer, more reasoned version of my points and it's really good. Also, there's lots of stuff about Peter Singer, which is usually good for a tiff in the comments.

CC


*Just looked it up, it's more like $50,000, or was before the economy crashed.

** This argument sounds a bit saner when I phrase it the way I did in the post:

I don’t actually have an objection to a social safety net, and I do want to relieve suffering.

But I, politically and theologically, don’t know what to do with the idea that:

Anne wants to be an artist and sacrifices and scrimps to make art. She’s a starving, but well-respected artist.
Brian wants to be a professor and keeps himself a poor student for years on end. His students love and respect him even if he has to live on campus because of a state education salary freeze.
Carrie wants to be a mom and has five children, who bring untold fulfillment and joy to her life.
and
Dave wants to be a stockbroker and works night and day to make that happen. He makes some wise trades and is very successful.

Everybody got where the are because of the choice they made. But taking care of the poor is Dave’s, and only Dave’s, job, because he’s the “rich” one.

The worldwide median income is about $5,000. We’re all rich by that standard.

For me, it comes down to a question that others have struggled with far more heroically than I do: How much comfort is OK for us to allow ourselves in a world where people are suffering?
Should Anne quit painting and start designing advertisments and send the extra money she makes to charity? Should Brian give up his research and teach in an inner city school? Is Carrie expected to donate her kids’ college funds to feed the hungry?

How do I justify throwing parties in a world where people are starving?

I don’t have an answer. But at least I’m willing to apply they question to myself, rather than deciding that struggling with it is the province solely of “The rich.”

Is Obama a funny guy?

Hold down the fort for me. This morning's post was not an intentional attempt to suck up to theists as to solicit prayers, but hey, if you feel inspired, knock thyself out. As always, CC needs all the help she can get. (Yes, yes, atheists, I also studied.)

Topic for discussion if you feel inspired?

In the words of Chris Rock, Bill Clinton was our nation's greatest comedy president, both because he was funny himself and because he was so easy to make fun of. Memorably, Rock phrased it that Clinton was "ha-ha funny" while George W. Bush was more "this milk smells funny."

Is Obama a good comedy president?

If so, why?

If not, why not?

My answer provided after exam.

CC

A pretty simple argument for theism. (Or at least not against it.)

Jessica Sideways addresses the question of why she criticizes theists. My church runs around 50/50 theist, though I've never heard an atheist express him or herself with Jessica's bluntness there. Pretty much all of it is stuff that has been addressed a million times, either you take Jessica's position or you don't.

A few examples in direct response to Jessica's examples: Yes, lots of blood has been spilled, theoretically in the name of God. Either you accept that in defending their God the people who spilled the blood got to put themselves in charge and that even more blood has been spilled over people wanting to be in charge with various other justifications, therefore were it not for religion those inclined to spill blood would just pick another reason, or you don't. I do.

Before the invention of the microscope, anyone who believed in bacteria had to, at best, say that their theory that bacteria existed was one of many theories that were possibly true. They could not show anyone bacteria or in any way prove that is wasn't imaginary. The people who didn't believe in bacteria were perfectly rational not to do so as the claim that bacteria existed surely sounded like a fairy tale.
But the people who believed in bacteria were still correct, as the invention of the microscope would eventually prove. So there is at least some precedent, in science no less, for people to believe in things they can't see and can't prove exist at this moment to turn out to be correct.

There are lots of people who justify science and religion co-existing various ways. To give my Christian parents' views as an example, which I like to do since they are smart folks, God designed a world that could be left on its own to grow and change. One of God's greatest gifts is freedom and the freedom to chose a mate that creates evolution is part of what plan God has, though it isn't our place to know God's plans, the degree to which things are planned and/or the level of detail. Stories like Adam and Eve and the Great Flood are meant to be taken as metaphor and if you think about them, provide valuable lessons. Biblical admonitions against the eating of shellfish that sound crazy now made a hell of a lot of sense in a world that wouldn't develop refrigeration for another couple of thousand years. Even if you don't believe that the ten commandments are God's rules, they make a lot of sense and we would live in a much more pleasant world if everybody took them as good advice and followed them.* Etc, etc, and soforth.

To further expand on the point, in an argument at Steve Caldwell's blog once, I made an analogy that I've always sort of liked, comparing belief in God to my appreciation of modern art. I assume for the sake of argument that one "chooses" to believe in God or not, something that I don't necessarily believe**. Anyway, I'm going to edit it what I wrote a smidge and re-post it here.

Dale McGovern wrote: Many, many theists express their supernatural belief as a necessary alternative to a world they otherwise see as cold, wonderless, and devoid of meaning.


CC responded: Just because someone says "A world without God would be cold, wonderless and devoid of meaning" does not mean they are choosing to believe in an imaginary God to please themselves.

I could say "a world without modernn art would be cold, wonderless and devoid of meaning" and that doesn't make Picasso a creature of my imagination.

You don't have to believe in modern art for modern art to exist, after all, and if modern art doesn't enrich your life, that doesn't mean that modern art isn't valuable to some people.

Steve Caldwell wrote: Given the amazingness of the natural world, do we need to "gild the lily" by adding a supernatural layer to this world we live in?

CC responded: You can say "Given the amazingness of the natural world, why do we need to 'gild the Lily' by having an style of art that focuses on finding new truths by looking for new ways of seeing and considering new materials and the nature of art itself?" all you want but:

1. Modern art still exists.

2. It's still a valuable thing that enriches the lives of those who appreciate it.

3. It gives a new perspective and new truths to those who believe in it and understand it.

At the same time, lots of people decide that modern art is a bunch of hooey and don't bother and/or only look at more representational older paintings.

Since much of the discussion has centered around a "What you see is what you get world," I will put my response in that framework.

If you don't go see Modern Art, you will never get it. You will get other things that you do see, but you won't get what you decide has no value and not to look for or at. If you superficially examine modern art and dismiss it without really understanding or appreciating what you're looking at, it's really not very surprising that you don't get much out of the exercise.

And that's up to you and fine, until you start saying "I don't see any value in modern art, so modern art must be valueless for everybody else, too."

CC

* As one who is still considering divorce law as a potential profession, it saddens me to admit that they have a point there.

**Sitting right where you are, just for a moment, choose to believe that the moon is made of green cheese.

Go ahead. Do it. I will wait.

...


...


...


Can't do it, can you? Even if you really, really, try?

IMHO, all belief works about the same way. You believe or you don't and your desires to believe or not don't have much to do with it.

I have met one guy who, when given this exercise, claimed that he was able to turn on his belief in lunar cheese and turn it back off again like a light switch. That dude sorta scared me.

Boarding the plane

>

> Me: is it a full flight?
>
> Stewardess: not at all
>
> Me: well, it would be awesome if one of us could switch seats if
> that's possible. He and I are married and would like to sit together.
>
> Stewardess: I figured you were going to tell me you were married and
> you DIDN'T want to sit together.
>
>
> Shrug. Stewardess humor, I suppose.
>
> Sent from my iPhone

Cutting short the Vegas posts

I've been informed that people who are following me over feeds aren't
seeing the pictures and this getting lots of posts that make no sense,
I will finish the Vegas tour and put it in Facebook instead.

Sent from my iPhone

I love this town 2: 19

I don't get it either

I love this town 2: 18

I don't love ALL the tackiness of Vegas, I should clarify. In many
ways I appreciate Vegas' honesty. But this is just yucky.

I love this town 2: 17

Jana-who-Creates was skeptical when I told her how common and blatant
advertising for hookers is in Vegas. This guy's shirt and the
pamphlets he's handing out make that point pretty clear.

I love this

I love this town 2: 17

I really wanted to stay in the Flamingo because of it's nifty old
Vegas roots. We didn't, but it is certainly sobering to consider that
is we had, we would have been in a hotel full of Donnie and Marie
fans. Shudder.

I love this town 2: 15

I will end the tackiness tour of the Bellagio with the concession that
the fountains outside, where every once in awhile a show tune will
play and the water will move in dancer-like time to the music, are
pretty cool.

I love this town 2: 14

No, I can't articulate why parasols hanging from the ceiling are cool
and giant glass flowers hanging from the ceiling are not.

But I still think I'm right.

I love this town 2: 13

I stalked this bride for like five minutes trying to get a good
picture of the big ass tulle flower on her head. Failed.

I love this town 2: 11

And the tackiness tour of the Bellagio continues with this sign
indicating the pretentious names of the conference rooms.

The Mandelay Bay's sign advertising both the Wedding Chapel and the
Shark Reef seems charming by comparison.

I love this town 2: 11

Don't get me wrong, in a room that was otherwise less over the top,
they might be passable.

I love this town 2: 10

F-U-G-L-Y, the ceiling ain't got no alibi, it's fugly!

(on a tackiness tour of the Bellagio until further notice)

I love this town 2: 9

The high-stakes poker room at the Bellagio is either (a) the best
place in town to play poker because of all the rubes with money who
think they can play or (b) the worst place in town to at poker because
everybody who is good at poker knows (a) too.

I love this town 2: 8

I had low expectations of the Bellagio until I saw this awesome
parasols-hanging-from-the-dome mobile. This notwithstanding, I should
have kept my low expectations.

I love this town 2: 7

I've done a lot of studying I'm this bar. It isn't as dark as it looks.

I love this town 2:6

I will probably try all week to get pictures that capture how beatiful
these red mountains really are. I won't be able to on this little
camera.

How ironic that Vegas' natural beauty should be so subtle.

I love this town 2: 5

The captain's chairs make it.

I love this town 2:4

Meet Cindy. Cindy is giving CC the greatest pedicure she has ever had.

I love this town 2:3

What my hotel lacks in kitsch it makes up for with comfort.

The new membership numbers will go up on the UUA website soon

But for now, here's the letter that went out to the UUA board. I also have the attached documents and will happily provide them to anyone who is not working or has not worked to reduce UU growth who emails me to request them.

My reading of this is that the UUA shrank by 74 members if you include the CLF and 140 if you do not.

Assuming these numbers are correct and no matter whether you think our denomination of 160,000+ members lost 74 or 140, I absolutely stand by everything I said about Morales at the beginning.

Should you wish to verify this email on your own, write your favorite UUA board member and ask about it. Or heck, write Peter Morales.

Oh, and Rev. Peter Morales's church is down 1.16 percent while the UUA as a whole is down 0.02 percent.

Again, dips in membership happen and I wouldn't care if Morales weren't working to hard to bill himself as the savior of UUism's membership numbers.

CC

Ps. The fact that church NUMBERS went down slightly, but church ATTENDANCE went up as a percentage suggests to me that the people who think that a few churches culled the rolls of non-active members are correct.

____________________________________________________________________________________

The various reports are based on the most recent UUA growth statistics and based on data collected as part of the 2-1-09 certification process. A description of each attached report is noted at the bottom of this email. Each of the six attachments are one-pagers, so it’s not as daunting as it may appear!



Highlights from these reports:


· In the last year, for the first time in many years, adult membership in our Association of Congregations declined by 74 members going from 164,730 to 164,656 or -0.02%. Looking at districts only, membership declined by 140 members, going from 156,403 to 156,223 or -0.1%. Many who have reviewed these numbers speculate that membership rolls were reviewed more carefully this year so that membership more accurately reflects active members.


· In the last year, 8 of our 19 districts increased in membership while 12 declined. (Over the last six years – a better gauge – 12 of our 19 districts increased in membership.)


· In the last year, 42% of our congregations reported adult membership growth while 44% reported declines and 14% reported no change. (Over the last six years 52% of our congregations reported growth while 45% reported declines. 3% reported no change.)


· In the last year, 5,110 members were added to the membership roles of the congregations that grew. Of those congregations that declined, 5,184 members were removed.


· In the last year, average attendance on Sunday morning increased 1.2%.


· Religious Education registration declined by -1.3%.

Also interesting is Tracey Robinson-Harris’ update on various growth experiments going on. It is also attached and is one page.

After the last meeting you requested a copy of the UUAs Growth Plan, the three-page document that has outlined our approach to growth for the past several years. It is attached. Between now and the end of Bill’s administration, we will be creating an update of activities and results arising from this Plan. (Note: It is called a “draft” because it is continually evolving as we learn more.)

I look forward to seeing you all at this week’s Board meeting. If you’d like me or Tracey to join you at the Growth Working Group meeting, just let us know.


Be sure to look at the description of the files attached, below. Most are one-pagers. I will provide hardcopies of all the one-pagers to all members of the UUA Growth Working Group. If anyone wants electronic or hardcopies of the detailed congregational data, I can certainly provide that, as well.

Links that make me happy.

Crimes Committed by Ferris during his day off.

How Michelle Obama is an inspiration to women all over the world. I will confess I had not considered the significance that her both having dark skin and raising two girls would have in other parts of the world.

Awesome. Just awesome.

CC

My, that's a pretty picture

Now, to take a practice criminal procedure exam.

Good Morning, Las Vegas

Grr. Keith Olbermann

I know I'm pretty much alone around here in my distaste for Keith Olbermann. My latest reason for seriously disliking the guy:

Sean Hannity has offered to be waterboarded for charity and Olbermann is offering a thousand bucks for every second he's under.

I realize that Hannity did offer and as a publicity matter it is perfectly legit for Olbermann to publically take him up on it, but waterboarding is not a fucking dunk tank, y'all. This is torture we're talking about, and I don't think treating it like Hannity's in a high school kiss-a-pig contest to raise money for the football team is appropriate.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed reportedly impressed the CIA immensely by lasting almost two minutes being waterboarded. My suggestion would be that Olbermann give $120,000 now and NOT make the amount of his contribution dependent on how much torture another human being can stand. It's just morally wrong to cheapen the torture argument that way.

CC

Full disclosure: Recently I read in my homework about an Irish interrogation method that their courts had deemed "not torture." I was curious about it, so I did it to myself for two minutes. I knew damn well that I was in a study room of the Georgetown Law Library at the time and I knew I could stop anytime I wanted, so I didn't get the full effect, but it was an eye-opening experience. I told the professor of the class in question about this, and he said with amusement that he'd never had anyone do original research on the subject before.

As an aside, if you're a law student and you decide to do original research on torture, learn from my mistake and pick a method that DOESN'T involve your fingers. For typing to hurt for days is a really bad thing, law-school-wise.



Ps. If you'd like to read Christopher Hitchens' report on what his waterboarding session was like be my guest. Note from the picture attached, though, that Hitchens is wearing street clothes and shows no signs that he has been mistreated or imprisoned for months prior to the waterboarding. Also, Hitchens knows that he will be able to go home to his family that very day as opposed to real victims of waterboarding who have good reason to assume they will never see their familes again. His experience likely had more in common with my experiment in the law library than what an actual tortured person goes through, and he's still adament on the subject that waterboarding is torture.

Oh, how CC loved "American Violet"

You know those little Civil Liberties rants I go on about the hideous unfairness of the way drug raids are conducted?

Well, I just saw a law movie that played to my sympathies and view of the world in a way no law movie since "Inherit the Wind" has.

That movie was "American Violet" a movie based on the experiences of real life plaintiff Regina Kelly, an innocent African-American woman caught up in a racially-motivated drug sweep* and arrested on drug charges who sued Robertson county district attorney John Paschall and won a decent settlement, a restructuring of the county drug task force and a promise to stop the raids.

This being Texas, Paschall is still the DA.**

The acting in American Violet is absolutely first rate. Newcomer Nicole Beharie plays the plaintiff in the case, renamed "Dee Roberts" for the movie. She is perfect in the role as a woman clean cut and obviously intelligent enough to be a perfect candidate for an ACLU test case, yet with a nasty temper that gets her into an altercation with her ex-husband, getting herself arrested and making things harder for her in same sort of way that people make things harder for themselves all the time in real life. This is not a movie with Inherit the Wind's brilliant speeches and stirring writing, but there's a realness to it that makes it more engaging than the two-hour Law and Order episode I was expecting.

For me, the true standout performance was Alfre Woodard as Dee's mother, who takes care of Dee's children while she was in jail and spends a good three quarters of the movie trying to convince Dee to take the easy way out, first to accept a plea bargain, then to drop the lawsuit. As y'all know, I follow this stuff, so I went in there knowing what had happened in Hearne, Texas and that the real-life equivilent of Dee's character really did make real change and that the story had a happy ending. I assumed the movie would turn out the same way, but Woodard's performance was such that I was almost rooting for her at times and there was never a second that I didn't know where she was coming from and that she felt the way she did because she loved Dee and loved her grandchildren and wanted what was best for them.

And ya know? I'm on Alfre Woodard's side naturally. When I read about a criminal case, I am usually the pragmatist, the one who looks at how much time a plea would save and how risky the trial would be. In all aspects of my life except possibly blogging, I'm pretty quick to compromise, even when I'm pretty sure I'm right since most battles cost more (money, time, emotional energy) to fight than they do to lose. I'm a picker of battles and I generally don't pick ones that I think I'm likely to lose. Linguist Friend calls me "conservative by temperment." I'm not ashamed of being that way and one of my favorite things about Obama is that he seems to share that quality.

But I left American Violet left me wanting to more carefully examine my battles as to make sure they aren't worth fighting and to be a better person. And yes, one day, Bar permitting, a better lawyer.

That's about all a girl can ask from an afternoon at the movies.

CC
who, in other news, is so glad "The Soloist" is finally in theaters and will thus soon be gone as she has accidentally subjected herself to the preview about five times in the six months it has been playing in theaters. If you've been reading the Chaliceblog awhile, I'm sure you can imagine that if the designers of this movie that begins with a horrible bicycle accident and centers around a schizophrenic musical prodigy WANTED to design a movie to mess with Chalicechick's head, they couldn't have done a better job.

*Similar to the infamous one in Tulia, Texas though smaller in scale.

** And it's not just Texas. Jefferson Parish Sheriff Harry Lee was just as bad and Louisianans would probably re-elect his corpse were it possible to do so.

The sad thing is, this really DOES inspire me.

I like seriously want to go conquer Poland or something.

Hat tip to Jason Pitzl-Waters's facebook page.

CC

Retracting the "down by 74" figure

Robin and Chuck B. make some good points in the comments two posts down. I wish they'd made them in a nicer tone, but I won't let the points' basic reasonableness be obscured by their rude presentation.

To be clear, no I don't know exactly how many UUs we lost in the past year. After trying to find that information, I'm frankly not convinced that anyone does*. Using different numbers available from the UUA, I've calculated that we could have lost or gained a few hundred.

I still think we lost 74. And here's why I still think that.

-I don't think Morales would have written what he did if he didn't have excellent reason to think we'd lost some members.

-I think that if we'd lost, say, 1000 members and Morales knew it, he would put that in his letter because it would have made his argument much stronger and Morales has never shied away from talking about how we're in decline.

-I think that if we'd lost some huge number of members but we didn't know exactly how many, Morales would have said essentially that because it also would have made for a stronger argument. Since he focuses his argument not on the amount of the loss, but the fact that it was the first one in awhile, my guess is that Morales knows or strongly suspects that the amount isn't actually very big.

-I heard from a reliable source that this number was announced at the UUA board meeting. If someone who worked for Consumer Reports said that a Volvo was a safe car, I would be inclined to believe them without checking up so see if they were lying to me. More to the point, nobody here has questioned whether Morales himself knew what he was talking about because I think we all assume he's in a position to know how the UUA numbers came out. Similarly, I trusted the number because I heard it from someone who was in a position to know it. You don't have to believe me when I say that, but this list is about why *I* think that 74 is still the correct number and that's certainly a factor.

-I don't think that 74 churches closed because if that many churches closed in one year, somebody would have noticed and written about it and we would all be talking about it on blogs and in our congregations. 74 churches is an average of almost four churches per district. Did three or four churches close in your district? Didn't happen in mine. Also, Morales didn't mention church closings and had 74 churches closed he would have because it would have made his argument stronger.

All that having been said, I do not know to a degree of certainty that I'd make a big wager on that the "down by 74 members" figure is accurate. For the reasons mentioned above, my guess is that if it isn't accurate, it's very close, but you certainly shouldn't rely on it for anything significant. The person who said it to me said it as if it were common knowledge and I took it as such, but I shouldn't have been so quick to do so. I'm certainly not accepting Chuck's invitation to follow the rules of courtroom evidence any time I'm going to write on my blog, but if I had the post to write over again, I would do it differently as I know now that the "74" figure isn't as clear-cut as I took it to be.

That having been said, even without the "down by 74 members" figure, it's pretty easy to compare the number Morales' church says they had last year to the number they say they have this year and I doubt they've changed their way of counting, so I'd say my central point still stands.

From where I'm sitting, Hallman has mentioned growth as an important thing, but has focused on her experience as a reason to vote for her, with a lot of her supporters mentioning that she would be a steady hand on the tiller. I read her sermons and see a person of vision who gets that we need to grow, but also understands why.

Morales' entire campaign has focused around growth for the sake of growth and how his church is fast-growing under his leadership and his church leads seminars on growth and he's the man who will grow the denomination.

My church is not being run by a man promising to grow the denomination and we still grew last year. So yeah, Morales' church losing members makes the central issue of his campaign ring a little hollow, whether the UUA overall lost 75 or 7,500**.

CC


*For one reason why this is the case, my impression is that churches don't have uniform membership standards. Bob, our aforementioned guy who puts money in the plate but who doesn't pledge, will be counted as a member in some churches and not in others. Indeed, I've attended a church where it would come down to whether he used cash or wrote a check when he put the money in.

And my guess is that, say, a mom who puts her kids in RE but doesn't join herself or the occasionally-attending spouse of a member or someone who joined mid-year would be counted differently in different churches and I know different churches let YRUUs join at different ages.

**Yes, if the UUA lost thousands of members, Morales losing comparatively few members would certainly look better than it does if we assume that the UUA overall didn't lose very many. But he's still not running as the candidate that will lose relatively few members. He's running as the guy who will help us grow.

My date with Fred

My facebook photo album of counter-protesting Fred Phelps with my YRUUs is up. If you're on facebook and my friend, check it out!

If we don't know each other in real life or you're on facebook and you'd like to see, I can email you access to it.

CC

Perspective, please, Mr. Morales

On Rev. Morales' campaign website, he bemoans the fact that the UUA's numbers are down for the first time since the early 1990's.

This MUST serve as a wakeup call, he declares.

First off, the decline of 74 people that Morales is so hot to turn into a campaign issue isn't even statistically significant.

Secondly, a quick jaunt by UUA data services reveals that Morales' home church, which had 775 members last year, now has 764. So the entire UUA's loss in membership would have been about fifteen percent less if he'd held on to the people in his own church.

Now there's a wakeup call.

Do I think a difference of nine people in a 750+ member church means anything? No, I don't. People die, people move away, people get busy at work, people marry observant jews and convert, people forget to pledge and get dropped off the rolls*, people get divorced and feel weird going to church with their ex-spouses. This stuff happens.

The thing is, it happens on a national scale, too. I certainly don't see a loss of 75 people meaning anything much in a national organization of hundreds of thousands.

Everything I read from the Reverend Morales sounds like a marketing appeal, this new letter especially. He is currently using this loss of 74 people as an emergency that calls for marketing as a solution.

I don't believe him. I don't want a marketer, I want a minister.

And Laurel Hallman is the minister I want.

CC

*As an aside, two of the three UU congregations I've been involved with have required a financial commitment for membership. This makes me wonder how often "Bob loses his job. He could pledge some, but can't afford to pledge what he could last year. Embarassed, he throws his pledge card away rather than submitting it with a reduced amount. He keeps attending, and even throws cash in the collection plate, but is dropped from the pledge rolls." has played itself out in our congregations. I know it has happened at least once because I've been Bob. I suspect that in these tough economic times it has happened quite a bit. Indeed, I bet you it has happened more than 74 times in the last year.

There's an amendment between the third and the fifth? Really?

Finally, some good news from the SCOTUS

The sad thing is, this really shouldn't seem like such a big deal, it's just that it's so rare that anything involving the fourth amendment turns out the way I would want it to. Since the Herring decision, I had lost hope.

CC
who thinks that you should tell your children that if anyone at school ever wants to strip search them, they should demand that the school call you immediately and keep repeating the words "law suit" until you arrive, no matter what the SCOTUS says.

If Oscar the Grouch were arrested, would the police need a warrant to search his can?

I'm thinking that California v. Carney (Holding: The warrantless search of a mobile home does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.) indicates "no," though given that his can doesn't have wheels and can't move on its own, it's possible that Chimel v. California would apply.

Really, it comes down to the practical question of how his can seems to contain a near infinite amount of stuff, like Mary Poppins' valise. Is it all within easy reach? Under Chimel, that should be the test. If he really can get to all that stuff easily, then he could get to a concealed firearm and be a danger to the arresting officers so the can should be searched.

What if he were arrested outside the can? Under Vale v. Louisiana, I would say "yes, they would need a warrant." But if his can counts as a MOBILE home, note illustration, then the Carney exception might apply given Thornton v. United States.

Ok, back to work.

Yes, I am studying criminal law today. Why do you ask?

CC

So, how do taxicabs make money, anyway?

About a month ago, some friends of mine and I caught a late movie. After the movie, we spent about half an hour trying to hail a cab. Many times, empty cabs whizzed by the four of us non-threatening-looking people standing outside a movie theater.

Eventually, we called a cab company to send us a cab.

Were the cabs that went by us already on the way to other places? If not, what's the deal?

CC

Ps. Unrelated story: Back when I wrote for a living, one of my first freelance writing assignments was covering a computer hacking convention in New York. When I told my mother I was covering a hacker convention, she said "Taxicab drivers have conventions?"

And Justice Scalia wonders why some of us are skeptical of new textualism...

"If I think your methods of getting what you want are stupid, I will not help you with your cause, however noble"

has always been a canon to live by for me as far as activism goes.

Example: Even if I didn't believe in gay rights, I would be wise to the fact that Fred Phelps does more to hurt his cause than help it. I have sympathy for animal causes, but I'm never going to support PETA.

Anyway, Epilonious has another distinction to suggest.

CC

This might be the most safisfying seven minutes on YouTube.

And as someone who has watched her share of American Idol, I have to say that the editing could not be more perfect. I can only imagine what it was like to have seen it on TV with no hint of what was to come.

CC

Added later: I got an email saying that the embedded video isn't working for some people. Those people should click here.

Hmm...

Speaking of things that CC thought were true anyway...

Remember how...

When I liveblogged the Presidential debates, I kept making fun of John McCain's weird hatred of Spain, finally attributing his feelings to Penelope Cruz's acting?

Well, maybe he saw this coming.

CC

So, what should I put on my protest sign?

Yes, yes, she who hates protesting is actually planning to attend a protest.

Well, a counter-protest.

Fred Phelps, the "God hates fags" guy, is coming to Walt Whitman high school to protest the fact that the high school is named after Walt Whitman and Walt Whitman might have been gay, though I don't think anybody's sure. (Though admittedly Oscar Wilde had strong opinions on the subject.)

Clearly the homosexuals of this world need to have some more parades or something, because poor Phelps is running out of stuff to protest.

So some of my friends and I are going and I want a snarky slogan about peace and love or something because if I'm going to go, I might as well have a sign.

My initial urge is to make a sign that says "God hates protesters" and then wear a t-shirt that says "except me." But that sounds like the sort of thing that is funnier in my head.

Other options?

I've always liked "God bless the whole world, no exceptions"

and there's "For every anti-Gay protestor I see, I'm giving ten bucks to PFLAG"

I have a little too much dignity to show up as the confused person who was looking for the "God hates Figs" protest, though I appreciate the humor value.

I also kinda like "God hates Nora Ephron movies" but that would be hilarious to literally only me.

A gay friend of mine once carried a sign that said "Homosexual Agenda - Spend Time with Family - Be Treated Equally - Buy Milk" but that's not quite on point and it's too long.

Anyway, I'm open to suggestions and if I get more than a couple I will forward this thread around to my friends who are also attending.

If you're in the DC area and you'd like the details on where and when it will be or would like to donate to a "Phelps-a-thon" that gives money to gay causes for every minute the protest goes on, Click here. I've already donated.

CC
Getting back to studying now, she swears.

Update: "God Hates Nora Ephron Movies" has proved very popular among my law school buddies, but I think the "If God hates all the same things you do, you should probably re-examine your faith" point is a little subtle for these folks.

A good lawsuit.

Remember how when I was on hiatus, I came back specifically to post about Dr. Micheal West, a long-suspected fraud of a "bite mark expert" who was caught on tape faking evidence?

The lawsuits have started.

Back when I was a reporter, I took a certain morbid pride in being a member of the only profession to use the phrase "a good murder."

Now that I'm a law student, I see that the phrase "a good lawsuit" is also rare, yet occasionally applicable.

This, my friends, is a good lawsuit.

CC

Blogging is like this sometimes.

At least this one is a joke.

DNA Evidence Frees Black Man Convicted Of Bear Attack

More evidence for stuff CC thought anyway and one surprise

-Keith Olbermann is a schmuck who is someday going to be more trouble to liberalism than he's worth. He named twitter "the worst person in the world" because there was a twitter account in his name that he hadn't made. He made vague suggestions that Fox News might be behind this conspiracy without, you know, asking his own network if they were running it as a PR thing, which they were. You think he will apologize to Fox News for the false allegation? Me neither.

-Old people in love are the cutest thing ever

-XKCD is at its most brilliant when it is at its most depressing.

-Weddings seriously bring out the weird in some people.

-U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan doth sucketh mightily. Ok, that's not entirely accurate, she's very good at what she does, she just fights expensively for things I abhor such as vigorously enforcing obscenity laws and going after pain doctors who over-prescribe. Also, she was in the middle of the US Attorney firing conspiracy.

On the upside, she went to University of Pittsburgh School of Law, which should give everyone out there at a third-tier law school hope that they, too, too still have a shot at becoming powerful enough to be a major force for injustice. (MEOW!)

-PETA folks are nuts.

-As crazy as Americans are when it comes to anything involving terrorism the Brits will always be crazier.

-Jim Webb is one of the few actual mavericks in politics today and it would be awesome if he were vice-president rather than Biden

And the surprise:

Some people in the Maryland State legislature are at least willing to look at the "police departments overusing SWAT teams" issue.

The relevant portion of the article:

"Delegates adopted a bill, on a 126 to 9 vote, that would require law enforcement agencies to report every six months on their use of SWAT teams, including what kinds of warrants the teams serve and whether any animals are killed during raids. The bill was prompted by the case of Berwyn Heights Mayor Cheye Calvo, whose two black Labrador retrievers were shot and killed during a botched raid by a Prince George's County Sheriff's Office SWAT team in July.

Calvo has said he was surprised to learn that police departments use the heavily armed units far more routinely than they once did but that it is difficult to get reliable statistics about SWAT raids. The Senate has passed a similar measure. "




Correction/Clarification: Mary Beth Buchanan goes after pain doctors who are almost certainly innocent of over prescribing anything. Read all about it. I knew that I didn't approve of going after doctors criminally for being fooled by patients, I knew about how hard it is for the Chalicerelative's best friend to get her oxycodone prescription filled already. I didn't know that Buchanan was quite this bad.

Minor Lawbreaking

Since the bar looms in front of me, albeit two years in front of me, but seriously, nothing has loomed quite like this since I was planning my wedding, I've noticed that I have way cut down on minor lawbreaking. I was telling someone this this other day and they looked at me like "What? When you rob convenience stores, you no longer carry a firearm?"

No, actually, I meant various minor driving infractions, also now if I'm at a party and people start using drugs I feel I have to leave, and if somebody says "Sorry about your headache. I don't have any ibuprofen on me, want to try a Tramadol?" the answer is "No." Or should have been that one time. But anyway, never, ever do that.

Part of this is just getting older, but part of it is the clear and ever-present knowledge that if, say, theCSO and I get it on in a park and get caught, I'm going to have to explain it in my bar applications. Not a happy thought.

Anyway, there's a large and fairly amusing discussion of minor lawbreaking here.

CC

Yes, I know about the e-mail that went out at 1:51 p.m.

And I bet that if you got it and you're a frequent reader, you have a decent idea of why it is relevant to my life. Insights and advice welcome to my private e-mail address.

If you don't know what I'm talking about, either you will know soon enough or it doesn't concern you.

Sorry to be rude about this, but it's a weird situation.

CC

Ps. Still no news on the opportunity, which doesn't at all mean I won't get a yes at some point. But for now, I'm back.

Happy Ada Lovelace Day!

I wasn't sure about this whole "computer" thing the first time my parents brought home a Tandy 1000 from Radio Shack. They set it up in the basement and told me to type my homework on it, something I sucked at doing.

I really didn't get into it until they brought home King's Quest, a very early adventure game where you were played a little animated knight named Sir Graham wandering around having adventures in a fairy tale-type kingdom and recovering treasures in hopes of one day inheriting the throne of the aging king.

And you died when you screwed up. You died A LOT, which horrified the Chalicerelative.

Unlike previous text games, this was like a cartoon that you were involved in. You could control what Sir Graham did and watch him walk where you told him to. You didn't proceed through a linear adventure arcade-style. You could do a lot of wandering around, and indeed, had to. To little CC, it was awesome, though it sounds completely ridiculous to be praising this stuff more than twenty years later.

King's Quest was produced by the team of Ken and Roberta Williams, and written by Roberta.

Roberta Williams had been a housewife when her computer programmer husband brought home a game called "Colossal Caves," a very popular text adventure game that Roberta started playing constantly. She realized that she could write something similar, and better.

So she did. She wrote a game called Mystery house at her kitchen table. And then she took her husband out for a steak dinner and convinced him to program it for her. It was the first computer game to ever use graphics and its colossal success gave Ken and Roberta the capital they needed to start up their own game company, Sierra, which would be one of the most influential game companies of the 1980's and early 1990s.

Mystery House was released in May 1980. By 1982, Roberta was writing King's Quest, which would also prove to be one of the most important video games of all time.

Roberta wrote and produced so many influential games that ten years ago, Sierra released the "Roberta Williams" anthology, which includes fifteen of the eighteen titles she wrote, excluding two she had written under contract for Disney and her last game Phantasmagoria, which was huge by the standards of the time. (And sold a million copies, which was great at the time, but of course sounds sort of pathetic now.)

Roberta Williams has retired from gaming. She won't comment on other people's games, though every time one plays World of Warcraft, one is doing a bunch of things that people didn't do in video games before Williams. Now, she takes a lot of vacations and she is working on a historical novel.

But her work and her innovations paved the way for the video games we have today.

And they showed one little girl that computers could be pretty cool.

CC

Ps. So far, and Ada Lovelace day is almost over, only one other person has written about Roberta Williams. Here is that post.

And here's one more.

Bleg: RE internet policies

I know, I know, lots of blegs and little content recently. Sorry. Life is really, really stressful.

Anyway, my church is putting together an internet policy for RE to handle issues like:

1. YRUUer writes "I had the worst day ever! I'm so depressed!" on facebook. Do you:
a. Send them a private message of concern (which might come off as creepy, particularly if they are of the opposite gender)
b. Post a "hey, hope tomorrow is better" or "you can talk to me" message on their wall (and wonder if their friends start asking who the dorky adult who hangs out on their facebook page is.)
c. Ignore it until Sunday and check in with them then (But they are hurting now, unless they are just being melodramatic, which is always possible with some teenagers)

2. If a YRUUer looks like they might be bullying another kid online or being online bullied themselves, at what point do you intervene and how?

3. When, if ever, is it appropriate to private message/IM/Text a youth? (Goodness knows being able to text "Bring your permission slip to the retreat" to the one youth who keeps forgetting makes life easier, but if we make it seem normal for youth and advisors to be having one-on-one conversations over private mediums, aren't we opening the door for something hinky to happen at some point should a conversation turn intimate?)

4. Should an advisor ever "friend" a youth or should that always be the youth's choice?

5. If an advisor starts posting to a youth's page in a way that makes them uncomfortable, is there a way to set up things to make it easy for the youth to ask them to "back off" that minimizes the intimidation factor?

6. If a youth is posting pictures or text that suggests underage drinking or drug use or sex, at what point is it the advisor's duty to talk to the youth's parents?

7. If Janet, a YRUUer, makes her status "Janet is horny," is it the advisor's job to talk to her about how that's a really bad idea, which she almost certainly knows on some level anyway? If so, what's the best way to do that to minimize the embarassment all around?

8. What about other adults in the congregation? Where do these lines differ for them, particularly in their interactions with the youth?

So basically, it's the essential YRUU advisor question "What is the proper balance between parent and friend?" applied to cyberspace, facebook in particular. One of the awesome things about being an advisor is that you are supposed to have the judgment of an adult but not the parent-child dynamic. But that's a really tricky balance sometimes as youth do sometimes get into situations where parental intervention is appropriate, yet if the youth view us as "spies for their parents" then they will be reluctant to reach out even if they really need to*.

Anyway, do any of you guys' churches have such a policy drawn up? If so, can I have a copy?

Thanks,

CC

*I had a wonderful conversation a bit ago with a youth who was really concerned that this youth's Mother didn't trust him/her and constantly accused him/her of using drugs. The youth, who certainly doesn't have any of the external signs of drug use and has always seemed like a responsible kid to me, was embarassed and offended and wanted to know how best to talk to his/her mother about the mother's fears and get mom to cut the youth some slack.

It sure seemed like this conversation really helped, but it's not a conversation you can have unless the youth really believes that you're not going straight to their folks with anything they tell you.

Now I know artists have to pay the rent before they become famous...

But it still kinda blows my mind that Marc Chagall painted scenery for
theatrical productions.

Good on the Philly museum for having this and I'm sorry my picture
doesn't do it justice.

My take on class within UUism

I had a conversation yesterday with a guy in my church who is worried about losing his house.

It came up pretty naturally, I asked how he was doing and he said "Well, other than I might lose my house, great." He explained how he and his wife and his kids got into the situation, which isn't terribly relevant but you'd be sympathetic if I told you.

"Ya know," I said, "My impression is that the mortgage companies aren't in any hurry to take houses. The last thing they need is another one. If you call yours up, you might be able to work something out."

He allowed as to how he was planning to do this and someone else he knew had made a deal with a mortgage company that would work for him and he hoped he would be able to do something similar. I said I hoped so too.

At that point, a lady who had been nearby chimed in with how she was dealing with HER debt. The whole time I was fighting the urge to pull out my checkbook. But what theCSO and I have to spare isn't enough to help anyway and I'm defining "spare" somewhat loosely in that context anyway. The conversation didn't go on too much longer than that, but we talked about the tough economic times and how they were affecting the people we knew. I feel closer to those two people now than I ever have before.

This is one thing I don't get about the whole "class within UUism" debate. People draw those "white collar vs. blue collar" lines with such enthusiasm, but as far as I can tell, a lot of the problems are the same or similar when we actually start talking to each other. Especially in this economic climate. A law firm in my area has had six rounds of layoffs. Tell me white collar folks and blue collar folks don't have something to talk about these days.

I read on another blog about people saying that questions like "what do you do for a living?" and "where do you live?" make people who have less classy jobs and live in less classy neighborhoods feel insecure. I have no idea what to do about this because as far as I know, this is not intellectual snobbery, this is the human condition. I have a job that requires brains but not a college degree and I live in an unremarkable neighborhood in a nice zip code. There are lots of people I know with fancier jobs and houses and lots of people with less fancy jobs and houses.

The point isn't who does what and lives where as a matter of social rank, the point is that I know at all what they do and where they live because it gives us things to talk about and local concerns to discuss and bond over. We have to know something about the lives that our fellow congregants are living to really connect with them.

Besides, I bet if your answers to those two questions are "I'm a tax lawyer to the wealthy" and "I live in the fanciest neighborhood in town," half the listeners are thinking "I bet you don't get any time with your kids and you WAY overpaid for your house."

CC

Five to Ten Percent Retention

Question:

We hear this figure bandied around a lot, but how accurate is it?

In the last year, seven visitors have darkened the doorstep of my UU church who came there with me. At least a few of them signed the guestbook as visitors.

-One of them didn't join because he went home to Ohio mere hours after the service.

-Two of them didn't join because they are already members of CLF. (They came for a social event, not a service, but they still visited.)

-Two of them didn't join because they are presbyterians and were just coming to see me give my lay service.

-One of them didn't join because she's perfectly happy to attend Sunday services in her old folks home, except for the one sermon on a topic of great interest to her that my church happened to have.

-One didn't join because he refuses to join a UUA church because of its stands on political issues. Also, he likes to sleep in on Sundays. He also came to see my lay service and work on the church bazaar.

Yep, my church has a zero percent Chalicechick friend retention rate.

But not one of those visits-without-return was the church's fault. Indeed, my church could have put years of effort and planning into increasing their retention rate, and it would not have made one tiny bit of difference to whether those seven people joined the church.

Similarly, when I had moved back to my area and was choosing a UU church I visited at least ten of them in Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia before chosing the one I wanted. So for 2004, DC-area churches had something like a ten percent retention rate of me alone.

That sounds silly, but think about it. For something like nine churches, I attended between one and one dozen times, then left and never came back, in most cases because I'm really picky about the kind of preaching I like, though there were in many cases hundreds of people attending a church with preaching I thought wasn't first rate, so clearly my taste is far from universal*.

And I ended up not chosing the church with the best preaching because that church takes an hour to get to from my house on Sunday morning.

Are we taking stuff like this into account when we bemoan our admittedly tiny-appearing retention rate? Goodness knows that people do sometimes leave churches and never return because of reasons relating to the church itself.

But that's far from always the case, and even if it is, sometimes they just end up at a different UU church.

CC

* Let's not forget, I once walked away from a church because the people were TOO NICE.

A couple of quick points on the Merchant of Venice from a contract law perspective

Joe-the-Math-Guy is taking a Shakespere class from one of the professors at the small liberal arts college where he teaches. They are doing the Merchant of Venice and he asked for my take on a couple of the questions it raises from a contract law perspective.

So I figured I'd put a copy of that here, too.

SSW





First of all, to reiterate what I said in the discussion in the car, the contract would absolutely be void if it were written in America today. Selling body parts is illegal in every state and it is a basic tenet of contract law that you cannot contract for illegal products or services, or rather, you can, but the courts will not help you if there’s a dispute.

I have no idea what the common law looked like in Venice at the time of the story. Given than transplant surgery was not a reality at that time, it is unlikely that the issue of body parts as a commodity was something the courts had addressed before. But there are plenty of what us law folks like to call “policy reasons” for the court to declare the contract invalid. “Policy reasons” are justifications for a law or decision that are based in the public policy and based on what the person doing the reasoning believes is best for society as a whole. “If people were allowed to sell their organs, poor people would become organ factories for the rich” is a policy justification for a law.

Given the state of medicine at the time, for the court to allow the contract to proceed would be essentially legalizing contracted murders. That alone is a reason why the contract wouldn’t fly.

For what it’s worth, from a legal perspective, Portia’s argument is as absurd if not more so. It’s a basic tenet of the common law that any granted right must also entail any incidental powers necessary to its exercise. For another example, I can’t offer to rent you my car, have you sign a contract and pay me, then announce that you can not use any of my gasoline, even if you replace it because the contract you signed had no provision for you being allowed to use any of the gas. If this sort of thing were allowed, contracts for even the most minor deal would have to be much too long and detailed and nothing would ever get done in this world.

HfH 3: Desperate laryngitis bleg

Ummm... I can't freaking talk.

This has happened to me twice before as I was getting over being sick. (As I am now.) Both times it was gone within a day.

We're starting day four.

And I'm through being positive about it. I hate it. I realize that the clever thing to do here is to be all mature and reasonable about it and view myself as a little island of silence in a noisy world. Or use this as an opportunity to really listen to people.

Unfortunately, I have a job, and things to do at that job and after days of this I feel like I'm just annoying people with the notes and the whispering and the "Would you mind if I got someone else to make this call today? I'm happy to do the followup next week" I think my lawyers are really trying to be nice about it, but the vast array of simple tasks I suddenly can't do is as annoying to them as it is to me.

Whispering is bad for my voice and ineffective on the phone. But I do it anyway because I'm so desperate to get a message across without writing it and/or because somebody calls me on the phone and it's the best I can do.

Sometimes my throat has phlegm in it, sometimes not. Sometimes I cough, sometimes not. Some coughs turn into staggarringly painful little coughing fits. Most don't. But my voice is never there.

Anyway, stuff I have tried:

-tea with honey
-tea without honey
-gargling water and baking soda
-Gargling mouthwash
-gargling water and lidocaine
-brushing lidocaine on the part of my throat that hurts, which turned out to be my gag reflex (NEVER do this. Trust me.)
-Dozens of cough drops in three varieties
-Chicken soup
-Chili
-Vomiting (not a remedy I chose, mind you, though it did do a good job of clearing out my throat.)
-breathing steam in a hot bath
-Going to the Dr. (No, I don't have strep.)

I really have slept a lot. I really shouldn't miss anymore work and I refuse to miss anymore class.

Does anyone have any more ideas?

CC