WWUUD stream

๐Ÿ”’
โŒ About FreshRSS
There are new articles available, click to refresh the page.
Before yesterdayimported

Bridge-design churches.

6 December 2009 at 14:42
A few years ago, my church needed to build a new building to house our ever-expanding RE program*. After much architectural squabbling, we went with the "bridge" design where there's a bridge with a roof and glass walls connecting the two buildings.

If you ever have the chance to stand on one of those in the snow, do it. I did yesterday and the view was breathtaking. I was warm and comfortable and snow was falling down all around me on both sides, piling up on cars and making the entire world look clean and bright. I sat there for at least twenty minutes, breathing in the lovliness of it all.

CC

*If you write about how UUism is dying and you hear a loud guffaw from the general direction of Northern Virginia, this is why.

Taylor Swift and feminism

6 December 2009 at 13:34
I read some feminist blogs, though what I read there doesn't always make it back to The Chaliceblog. But it has been interesting to watch a slow backlash to the popularity of pop singer Taylor Swift creep across the blogosphere. It started with this post a month or two ago, and it appears to be picking up steam. CC-favorite blog The Sexist wrote about Swift this week.

On one level, I totally get it. Swift writes about hating the girl who is dating the guy she likes, how a friend of hers felt totally humiliated and ruined after she slept with a boy who turned out to be a jerk* and about wanting her boyfriend to rescue her by marrying her so she won't be alone. None of those themes delight me either. Actually, I'm sort of embarrassed to think of them.

Because I remember those feelings. I was very worried that no boy would want to marry me ever and I remember desperately wanting someone to want me enough to want to marry me. (I ended up turning down the first marriage proposal I got.) I know of at least one woman whose under-duress though not exactly date rape "first time" really REALLY screwed with her. (She's ok now.) And yes, I really owe a completely innocent girl an apology for my bitchiness to her because a boy I liked at 14 or so preferred her. (I ran into this boy awhile ago and he is WAY less awesome than theCSO.)

I have listed to some Taylor Swift songs, and while I don't adore the implicit social messages, I certainly don't see those messages as at all original to Swift. What's original to Swift is pop music that might not be your taste, but is well-written great stuff and the work of a 19-year-old. If she's reflecting things about our culture that we don't like, maybe it's time to change the culture, or at least sit down with our favorite teenage girl and have a talk about these sorts of cultural messages.

Anyway, I get really sick of people letting TV raise their kids then whining about it when TV screws up.

CC


*It says something that when Buffy the Vampire Slayer slept with a boy who literally TURNED EVIL, this was regarded as more or less symbolic truth and I don't recall any feminist critiques of the matter.

Odd Conversations CC has had recently

3 December 2009 at 15:01
Making a restaurant reservation over the phone

CC: Hi, I'd like to make a reservation?

Maitre'd: For how many?

CC: Eleven

Maitre'd: All right, for when?

CC: Seven o'clock Saturday night.

Maitre'd: I'm sorry, we don't make reservations for Saturday night.

CC: Oh?

Maitre'd: But I'm sure we will be able to seat your party when you arrive.

CC: Umm... I'm a little concerned. Since my party is so large, could you possibly set aside some tables for us so when we arrive at seven we won't have to wait?

Maitre'd: Certainly. I can do that.

CC: Wonderful!


At the church bazaar.

Guy: What's this?

Me: It's a footbath. You put warm water in it and some epsom salts and then you plug it in and it makes bubbles and stuff. You put your feet in it and it's really comforatable. I gave my dad one two Christmases ago.

Guy: Would your Dad like another one?

Me: I don't think that's necessary. After all, he only has two feet.


CC

Read about Tiger Woods in spite of myself

3 December 2009 at 02:31
Saw that his wife, Elin, called the mistress. When the mistress picked up and asked who it was, Elin said "You know who it is. You're fucking my husband."

I, for one, would have responded "I'm sorry, you're going to have to be more specific."

CC
who also notes that Elin is staying with Tiger, but has insisted that the prenup be revised. I like this woman.

This year's CC-written famous UU skit

30 November 2009 at 02:28
Note: This was performed at my church's yearly celebration of famous UUs and their gifts to society. It loses a little when you just read the text.

Cast:

Announcer

Applause people

PT

Jumbo

Jojo

Props needed:

Two large signs that say “Applause please”

A gaudy trophy (we used a soccer trophy)


(Entire cast is onstage, with any youth without assigned parts dressed as circus people. PT is in the center of the group of circus people.)

Announcer: Welcome, Welcome to the 1890 Universalist of the Year Awards. Tonight we honor a very important Universalist and one of the most famous men in the entire world, circus legend PT Barnum!

(Applause people hold up posters that say “applause please” Audience, one hopes, applauds.)

Announcer: You probably know PT’s story. After all, his autobiography is one of the best selling books in the entire world. You know he has given away large portions of his fortune to museums and libraries and to Tufts University. You know that he has revolutionized circus and entertainment. You know that he has helped change the circus from a den of iniquity to a den of delight! You know that he started the Greatest Show on Earth. You know who he is and you know that we’re giving him the Universalist of the year award, so give it up for :P.T. Barnum!

(Applause people hold up signs, PT steps to the front.)

PT: (Delivered in a way that makes him sound VERY impressed with himself. Jumbo should look increasingly agitated as the speech goes on.) Thank you, thank you, I’m honored to receive the Universalist of the year award. I have given a lot of money to museums and educational institutions, but I’d like to talk about one more reason why I deserve this award: My political work.

Now maybe it’s not appropriate for a church to give an award for political action, maybe that’s why you left it out of your speech, but before the war I spoke out against slavery frequently and I even served two terms in the Connecticut legislature. Also, I…

(Jumbo steps forward, takes mike from PT)

Jumbo: Now PT, I’m really happy for you and Imma let you finish but Clara Barton was the greatest Universalist of all time.*

PT: Well… I…

Jumbo: I don’t know why you think you can even get a religious award, you did so many bad things.

Jojo: Yeah, take it from your old pal Jojo the dog-faced boy, you’ve been lying to people and cheating them your entire career!

PT: Now really!

Jumbo: It’s true. Let’s talk about the Cardiff Giant for a second.

PT: (proudly) One of the most famous hoaxes in history, I might add.

Jumbo: The bible said some things that people thought meant there used to be giants roaming the Earth. So a tobacconist named George Hull made a sculpture of a giant man out of wood and started displaying it, claiming that it was one of those biblical giants. You made your own and started to claim that your giant was real and HIS was a fake, when both of the giants were just made up.

PT: (laughing) The thing of it was, when Mr. Hull took me to court, they ruled in my favor because the judge said there was nothing illegal about calling Hull’s fake a fake! I won the case!

Jojo: PT, you’re missing the point. You were CHEATING people. People came to your museums and your sideshows thinking that they were really seeing a giant man or the body of a mermaid, and none of that was true. How can you accept an award from a religion when you made all your money from tricking people?

(PT takes microphone, addresses audience. He should really sell this. Make the audience feel like PT is snowing them but they are having too much fun to care.)

PT: Jojo the Dog-Faced Boy is right. While I gave a lot of my money away, I made a lot of money from fooling people. But did you ever ask yourselves if those people really deserved to be fooled?

It’s a really complicated world out there, my friends. And if you’re the sort of person who runs around automatically believing in giants and mythical creatres, you’re going to have a difficult life. I gave lots of money to universities. But if you spent five cents to go to my circus, saw the unicorn, thought to yourself that it looked like a goat with a horn on it and figured out you can’t always believe what you’re told, then for five cents I gave you a better education than some people ever get.

Part of being a religious liberal is thinking for yourself. I taught thousands of people to do that.

So I ask you, members of the audience: Do I, PT Barnum, deserve this award? Applaud if you think I do.

((Applause people hold up signs. Announcer looks over the crowd (who should be going nuts), nods, and hands PT the trophy. He holds it up triumphantly.))

Announcer: The greatest showman on earth, my friends. The greatest showman on earth.


*Nobody got this joke, at all. The silence was deafening.

Less stupid than Black Friday, less self-satisfied than "Buy Nothing Day"

29 November 2009 at 04:51
Next day-after-Thanksgiving, I think I'll celebrate National Day of Listening.

CC
who knows some of y'all celebrate "Buy Nothing Day" and aren't evangelical jerks about it, but the majority...

CC's favorite reporter written up in her favorite magazine

29 November 2009 at 04:48
Yep, it's Radley Balko being interviewed by the Economist.

It's like a perfect storm, if perfect storms were awesome.

CC

Five years ago today

27 November 2009 at 14:58



~ A happy marriage has in it all the pleasures of a friendship, all the enjoyments of sense and reason, and indeed, all the sweets of life. ~

-Joseph Addison

In my Victorian literature class in college

26 November 2009 at 20:47
I equated that scene in 'Tess of the D'Urbervilles' where she's walking through the forest and the birds are falling out of the sky to this.




My professor didn't like that. Oh well.



Happy Thanksgiving from your pals at the Chaliceblog!

Does anybody ever think or Google things?

25 November 2009 at 20:21


A breathless email was sent to a mailing list I was on this afternoon. The original writer of the email had found this picture.

I swear, the second I saw it, I said to myself "Oh, everybody's saluting but the President. The band must be playing 'Hail to the Chief"

Needless to say, the text of the email was all about how the sender didn't know specifically what was going on in the picture, but picture was taken on Veterans day and how by not saluting Obama must have been showing disrespect to the troops.

Needless to say, when I went looking for what was going on during the Veterans Day Ceremony that Obama attended, I found video taken from another angle.



Yep, Obama had taken the stage and "Hail to the Chief" was playing. Obama wasn't not saluting the troops. He was not saluting himself. Because saluting yourself is stupid.

And we wouldn't want to be stupid, would we?

Sigh.

CC

CC reviews "Best Bet"

25 November 2009 at 17:28
I really wanted to like this book. Really.

I've read and reviewed the first three books in the series and prior to this, each book improved on the last. Best Bet has a decent plot. The main character, Hallie, is one class short of graduation and gets the chance to take a class that includes a free trip around the world. She takes the trip and discovers when she comes back that it didn't really change her life as much as she expected.

All of that sounds fine, but Best Bet seemed like a huge step down from the the previous book in the series, particularly in the characterization and the stilted way the characters talked.

I don't know that I've ever read a novel with so many quotations and references to random things. The whole series has this issue, though it's the most problematic in Best Bet. It's like a habit that several major characters have picked up and it leads to horribly clunky explanations of who the original speaker was that completely screw with the flow of the writing. Part of me wants to give the book a pass on that because it is a young adult novel and the author clearly wants to teach the reader what some words mean and who some famous people are, yet Harry Potter managed to teach very young children dozens of words that were J.K. Rowling straight up invented by simply using them in context and trusting that kids are smart and would figure it out.

Thus the Harry Potter books have no passage that reads like:


"Accio Broomstick!" Hermione said, and the broomstick floated over to her, because "accio" was a magic word that when accompanied by a wave of a magic wand, summoned the stated object to the person who case the spell.


Yet Best Bet has many passages that are almost as bad and they really drain the energy out of some of the dialogue. Also text like "She'd only told Bernard a hundred times that she'll not be used as bait to bring in trade for him, the way poet and socialite Sebastian Venable employed both his mother and his cousin in Tennessee Williams' play Suddenly Last Summer" and incredibly specific and dated references like "I hear strains of Neil Diamond's song Be from the Johnathon Livingston Seagull soundtrack wafting over the lawn..."

The first book in this series, Beginner's Luck got most of its "funny lines" from characters literally telling each other old jokes. Best Bet has a few funny moments, but mostly the characters were back to telling each other old jokes, and they did it a lot. Most comic novels get their humor from either the author's witty and original writing or character-based humor and Best Bet has little of either and having a character tell the old joke about the Charles Dickens martini, "No olive or twist," just doesn't cut the mustard.

As had been standard for this series, the continuity is really bad. For the simplest example, Hallie's sister Darlene is thirteen on page fifteen and twelve on page sixteen. But it's beyond that to a fundamental inconsistency to some of the characterization. The supposedly street smart Hallie ends up having to take an extra college class to graduate because she blindly trusted her advisor when he told her she was taking the right classes. Almost all schools have "breadth requirements." They aren't a difficult concept and it's kind of hard to fathom that a 21-year-old who was supposed to be that world-wise wouldn't have checked over her transcript for herself.* It never even occurs to anyone in the book that she might be partially at fault there.

That is far from the only hint that though she's supposed to be 21, in many ways, Hallie's still a teenager. She spends much of the first part of the book feeling like people are running her life if she's the center of attention and feeling ignored if she's not. She seems much more interested in what her boyfriend is wearing (which she carefully describes every time he appears) than what he is thinking or feeling. She thinks of him far less often than she thinks of her other friends while she is on a trip she takes around the world and at the beginning of the book has to be asked before she seriously considers what he will feel about her going and disrupting their plans to move in together, though she's been considering her own feelings on that for twenty pages or so. The purpose of her trip is a sociology class and she seems offended that she actually has to study sociology at times. She loves gambling and gets to be good friends with a gambling addict yet no insights ensue, other than she has to win his money back because she's a better gambler.

Also, what's the deal with her living in Ohio her whole life and acting like she's never met a Mennonite?

Heart's Desire was the only book in the series to have real plot issues, so it wasn't a surprise that the story isn't bad. That said, both the writing and the characterization are so clunky that it's almost impossible to focus on the story. I guess the series peaked with The Big Shuffle, which is too bad as I really thought it would improve from there.

Oh, and for the record, there is a phrase that teenage girls need to know that the book didn't teach. When a guy who is more or less a complete stranger knows you've been drinking all night and gives you more alcohol, then gives you drugs, ignoring your initial refusal, until you're so wasted that when you wake up in the morning you don't remember anything of the night before, that's "first degree sexual assault." If the character doesn't see it as that, she doesn't have to treat it that way, but if you're going to write a book that goes to the trouble of explaining who Dorothy Draper is, you might as well get that concept in there.

In the book, it's treated like an amusing youthful adventure and the only consequences are the main character's concern that a boy she thinks is cute will think she's a slut.

Sigh.

CC

*Item: At my "pre-Senior year" check-in with my college advisor, he looked at my transcript and said I needed three politics classes to graduate. I said "No, I don't, I need four."

Because I had looked at the requirements, then looked at my transcript. Not rocket science.

Hanging out as a Spiritual Practice

23 November 2009 at 00:15
Peter Morales has caused a mild stir in the YRUU room.

In an attempt to get UUs off our duffs and doing things, a cause I'm usually behind, he has made some rather grand statements about youth work in the latest issue of UU World.

He writes:

"I am convinced that we too often fail to recognize how much our children, youth, and young adults need to give. Hanging out is not a spiritual practice. Joining hands to work for something we care about is. Service is an essential part of faith development. We need to do so much more to engage the idealism and energy of our young people."


Err...Does he actually KNOW any UU youth? Has he ever tried to fit in YRUU amongst football practice, homework, play rehearsals and family responsibilities? I was at an RE training this weekend and someone else asked TogetherBeth what work our YRUUs did out in the community. She said something like:

"Well, we do the food drive at All Souls, of course, we have 40 youth going to that tomorrow. And we put together safe sex packets for Metro Teen Aids, and we entertain kids at the children's Inn at NIH and the whole church does volunteer work in the community during service week...well, we need to do more out in the community"

Actually, I think most people would say that's pretty good. And "out in the community" doesn't count the work trips to El Salvador and New Orleans our church does that are attended by lots of youth and the tons of fundraisers for various charities that our YRUU group does.

That aside, though, I still think the Reverend Morales is incorrect when he writes that "Hanging out is not a spiritual practice."

Well, actually, earlier in the article, he writes warmly "I remember one woman who had a passion for connecting with the elders of the church. She wanted them to feel connected and respected. She loved to hear their stories. What a gift she was to our church!" So perhaps what Reverend Morales meant was that "Hanging out is not a spiritual practice when youth do it" because it sounds suspiciously like hanging out is spiritual as all get out when you do it with the elders of the church.

The most useful conversation I've ever had with a YRUU happened as we were baking brownies. The second most useful conversation I've had with a YRUU happened BECAUSE Jana-who-creates and I were too lazy to go upstairs and get a folder. (If you follow that link, it's item four.)

Hanging out, in the way YRUUs do it, where you talk about how to deal when a friend says something homophobic, or how upset you were when you had your first car accident or how you've decided what you want to do when you grow up or how the kids at your old school were mean to you but you love your new school and now you're OK, is a vital, connective tissue that makes all of YRUU's heavy lifting possible. Hanging out is where we learn both the big important moments and the little stupid stuff of each other's lives. It's when we slow down from all the stuff we're doing (both charitable work and everyday things) and say to each other, "tell me about your day, because I want to know who you are."

I tend to think that when we connect with one another, we are connecting with a piece of that which is divine.

If that's not a spiritual practice, what is?

CC

Misanthrophy Moment: Social Skill issues on the internet that bug me

21 November 2009 at 14:48
1. People who constantly change which social networks they use/whether they are blogging and where and constantly feel the need to talk about it.

I first noticed this behavior back in the Usenet days when any site that promoted vigorous discussion had people who would grandly announce they were leaving, then quietly return within hours or days, a behavior that is fine once or twice. I recall Usenet folks who did it every month or so, though.

The current version is people who "cut back on their internet usage" every other month by announcing that they are going to stop being on facebook, stop tweeting, stop blogging, etc, and then go back to everything within a week or so.

It's not so much the leaving that bugs me; it is the announcing. Are you really so important that I need a lengthy facebook message from you every time you quit facebook? Are your blog readers really so dumb that if you don't update for awhile they won't figure out that you're cutting back?*

2. People who don't Twitter and are so damn proud of it.

Intense Elizabeth said that she couldn't judge these people because she doesn't have a TV and likes to bring it up. She's right, that's exactly the dynamic at work. Has someone asked if you're on Twitter? Feel free to say "No", though a speech about how you are too busy and important to waste your time on something like that is superfluous.

Otherwise, nobody really needs to know that you consider yourself too busy to be on Twitter. I'm not saying you have to be on Twitter, mind you, I'm saying that the "Why, I can't imagine how people find the time to type 140 characters about what they think or how they are doing every few days." is profoundly irritating thing to say, especially if you bring it up frequently around people who ARE on twitter becase it totally comes off with that "My time is too valuable for me to have a TV" snottiness that some people have. (And IntenseElizabeth mostly doesn't have)

Similar speeches about facebook and blogging are also included here, though Twitter seems to inspire the most self-satisfied smirking from those who don't participate.

3. People who read blog posts and news stories about Oprah, but aren't Oprah fans and need to make sure you know.

This applies to every Entertainment news story, especially those about celebrities, it's just very obvious about Oprah stories right now. American Idol stories get it every single year.

Damn near every Oprah story out there right now that allows comments has dozens of people who apparently clicked on a story about Oprah, chose to comment on a story about Oprah, then wrote something along the lines of "I don't watch Oprah, I don't care about this story."

I wish the people who feel the need to do this could bottle their apparently abundant free time and sell it to those people too busy to twitter.

CC
who appreciaties Oprah like she appreciates William Forsythe as both are apparent geniuses at forms of entertainment that just really don't interest CC personally. My feelings are roughly "Wow, it's great that there's someone out there doing such a great job doing that sort of thing for people who like that."

Because she knows you were dying to know what she thought about the matter.



*This is not a slam against Peacebang, who has closed her blog for a few months and is qite clearly remaining gone those few months. Even I publically pondered closing the Chaliceblog once. Once. in five years of blogging. And I said at the time that I was only going to do this if I got a certain job that more or less required me to. I didn't, so I'm still here. I get that life happens and that if you are literally disappearing for months on end you need to tell people, it's the people who do this all the time and never actually leave who bother me.

The slightly less awesome Alan Rickman video found!

21 November 2009 at 14:43
Truly obsessed people such as myself know that there were two versions of the Alan Rickman/I'm too sexy video. Anna had fond the earlier, draft-like version that is slightly off beat in places and has still photos in places.

By all means check it out if you need some Alan Rickman goodness.

And thank you, Anna

CC

Alan Rickman music video

20 November 2009 at 16:19
I got some not awful but rather frustrating news this morning and I'm needing some Alan Rickman to improve my day.

The original Alan Rickman video of the awesomenes is gone, so we will have to go with PG's suggested replacement.

CC

Quote of the Day

20 November 2009 at 16:03
"They made a porn movie about Sarah Palin and the same actress, Lisa Ann, played me in the porn version of 30 Rock. Weirdly, of the three of us, Lisa Ann knows the most about foreign policy." — Tina Fey.

Ethnic slurs for Ethnicities that don't really exist anymore

20 November 2009 at 14:02
TheCSO points out that using "Philistine" as an insult is technically an ethnic slur, it's just a slur against an ethnicity that has not existed in a long time.

As pretentious as I'm sometimes accused of being, I will confess that I don't really run around calling people "Philistines" much. As a term, it's a little "Look at me, I'm a bohemian with an expensive education" for my taste though I am sure it has its moments.

But since the whole "The Cubans CC knew growing up use 'boat people' non-pejoratively for people who took a self-help approach to get to America, but the Vietnamese consider it an extremely nasty ethnic slur and she will get yelled at if she uses it on her blog the way she always heard it used"* fiasco of '06, I generally assume that if I even have an inkling something could be construed as insulting to an ethnic background, I should never ever use it.

At the same time, there aren't any actual Philistines left to offend.

Thoughts?

CC

*For the record, the context was that anybody who had the brains and gimp to build a boat and sail hundreds of miles to get here deserved to be an American and probably had awesome genes our culture needs.

If you have sent me a novel to review...

19 November 2009 at 19:51
You should know that I have 47 pages of law school paper due in the next week. I'm 15 pages into my paper on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, seven pages into my main negotiation skills paper and I haven't started the negotiation paper that I have to read another book before I can write.

Luckily, I'm a law student and used to heaps of work so, that means "The review will go up Wednesday."

Apologies,

CC

"Into the church like that."

18 November 2009 at 01:47
Before class one night, a few of my classmates were discussing prior jobs they'd had.

One woman mentioned working for a political organization with strong ties to Christian churches. You'd know it if I told you the name.

"You worked there?" one of her friends said. "I didn't know you were into the church like that."

"I sure am," she said, her voice a masterful balance of emphatic passion and flawless politeness. He had meant it neutrally and she had taken it that way.

And I found that so interesting as I would be surprised if this person spends as much time as I do at church. Maybe she does. Nothing on her if she doesn't. Most people don't.

But even though I think I am "into the church like that" by any reasonable definition, UUs pretty much never think of themselves that way or put it like that. And if being a UU were a crime, I could surely be convicted, but I doubt I could confess with such grace.

CC

Erm...Wow.

15 November 2009 at 02:35
I am frequently accused, mostly by people who think they are making fun of political correctness by enforcing it, of not being the most PC person around.

And I would hardly consider "National Geographic" a particularly culturally sensitive organization. After all, it brings to mind either British Explorer types yakking to drawing rooms about their adventures in exotic places, or young people of generations before mine who used its pictures of naked people for well, what my generation and generations forward use the internet for.

So yeah, not particularly culturally sensitive even by reputation.

But despite my low standards for the place, even non-PC me is genuinely appalled by the Shrink your own head game now available on National Geographic's website.

It's exactly what it sounds like. Upload a picture of yourself and they will make your face into a shrunken head. Then you can put it on Facebook.

That might be one of tackiest, least culturally sensitive things I've ever seen on the internet. And that's saying a hell of a lot.

CC

A metaphor, one hopes

11 November 2009 at 20:56

I'm not even that much of a Star Wars fan.

11 November 2009 at 17:13
And my garden is in disrepair. Yet I still kinda want this.

CC

Carrie Prejean feels she is being "censored" and has been on several major news networks to talk about it.

10 November 2009 at 21:27
People who use the world "Censored" without understanding or caring what it really means irritate me. You are not being CENSORED if:

1. People insult you

2. Not every medium wants to write about you or your cause, or feature you talking about you or your cause. For example, if not every single news show wants to interview you about your memoirs of life as a beauty queen.

3. The UU World doesn't want to run an insulting ad from your favorite organization but has offered to run other ones that are more respectful.*

If you write a book and the government makes your book illegal, come talk to me. Otherwise, it's time to find another talking point because whining that your very well-known ideas are being censored because one news show won't interview you, one magazine won't run your ad, etc, etc and soforth just makes you look dumb.


CC

*Obviously doesn't apply to Carrie, but I did hear the UU World accused of "censorship" for not wanting to run the FFRF's ad in the future. The atheist who made this claim is FAR from alone. People CONSTANTLY bitch that anyone who wants to ignore their well-known ideas is censoring them.

Hat tip to theCSO Mom

9 November 2009 at 02:43
I totally feel for the people at the beginning who look like they want to call the cops, but like them I was won over by the end. And you gotta love the lady at 2:28 who is blandly buying her train ticket and ignoring everything that is going on.



CC
whose blog is not going to become your source for flash mob dance videos, but Kim HAD complained that my previous flash mob dance video had matching costumes. So now I've posted one that doesn't.

On the other hand, if you have anything around halfway as hilarious as Fisticuffs Club, the Chalicemailbag is always open.

Little Kid Religion

8 November 2009 at 23:36
I remember word-for-word the conversation where I first heard of Unitarian Universalism.

"I don't go to church," my lab partner in my high school Oceanography class (a goth chick who has several freshmen believing that she was an actual vampire) said. "But my parents are Unitarians." She spoke the last word like it was the most tremendously uncool thing to ever be.

"What do Unitarians believe?" I asked.

"They believe that you can believe whatever you want."

"That's a stupid religion." I said.

"No kidding"

And our conversation moved on to other matters, none of them relating to Oceanography.

As many times as I've corrected UUs of various ages (mercifully skewing towards kids) on the specifics of refining belief through reason, I can totally see why "you can believe whatever you want" is a little kid version of UUism.

Similarly, the little kid version of Christianity I grew up with was along the lines of "Be good and do good stuff and you will go to heaven. Pray and God will give you stuff. Take care of the poor because Jesus said to."*

I took some theology classes and developed a more sophisticated understanding of Christianity before I rejected it as a spiritual path, but I found those little kid tenets to be quite tenacious as far as my own thinking about these matters went and part of me still sees Christianity as a religion very focused on who gets what from God.

This line of thought has me really glad that I'm a YRUU advisor. We didn't have sunday school classes for teenagers when I was a Presbyterian teenager because we didn't have any teenagers who wanted to attend except me. (And this was at a decently-sized church in the middle of DC). As I've mentioned, the multi-church youth group I was in was all about keeping us from having sex with each other and not so much about anything else. I remember two lock-ins, a charades game, a retreat, a trip to the movies ("Groundhog Day") and a stream cleanup. There had to have been more in four years of high school but that's literally all I remember doing.

Also, there was one discussion where we were supposed to talk about our hero and lots of kids said "my mom" and lots of kids said "God" and Teenage CC said "Katharine Hepburn."

So yeah, there wasn't much moving on to becoming a mature Christian adult in there. It's not a big shock that I didn't stay.

Conversely, Jana-who-Creates grew up in Atlanta and tells lots of stories of driving across a state or two to go to a youth con and how YRUU cons were really where she fit in. She grew up getting Unitarian Universalism on a deep level because there were people who wanted to teach it to her. And she met Richard Simmons.

Here's hoping that the youth I know and the youth you know have a better grasp of the faith they are growing up in than I did and that like YRUU did for JwC it truly becomes a place where youth can fit and where they truly get what their religion tries to teach.

CC

*It bears mentioning that not all kids get the little kid version. LittleCSO had so many pointed questions about doctrine that his Sunday School teacher eventually had him meet with the minister, who told him straight out that if he didn't believe X, Y and Z then he wasn't a Lutheran. So theCSO stopped going to church as he was not a Lutheran. The actual truth of this story might be slightly less awesomely precocious, but that's how he tells it.

Poem for the Day

8 November 2009 at 22:02
Autobiography in Five Chapters
by Portia Nelson

Chapter One
I walk down the street.
There is a deep hole in the sidewalk.
I fall in.
I am lost...I am helpless.
It isn't my fault.
It takes forever to find a way out.

Chapter two
I walk down the street.
There is a deep hole in the sidewalk.
I fall in again.
I can't believe I am in this same place.
But, it isn't my fault.
It still takes a long time to get out.

Chapter Three
I walk down the same street.
There is a deep hole in the sidewalk.
I see it is there.
I still fall in...it's a habit...but, my eyes are open.
I know where I am.
It is my fault.
I get out immediately.

Chapter Four
I walk down the same street.
There is a deep hole in the sidewalk.
I walk around it.

Chapter Five
I walk down another street.

CC could really use that Alan Rickman video

6 November 2009 at 01:05
but YouTube has pulled it down.

So let's watch a reasonably talented flash mob dance to "Single Ladies."




CC
who wasn't encouraging the Yankees to win, mind you, but if they were going to they should have done it a day earlier so we could have had Glee back. Yes, I realize it's not as good as it was when I told you to watch. But it's still better than most things.

Anybody got a hymnal handy?

4 November 2009 at 05:08
What are the hymn numbers for "We'll build a land" and "Enter, rejoice and come in"?

Thanks!

Inappropriate use of a SWAT team #548

3 November 2009 at 21:06
Cops like to claim that they HAVE to use a SWAT team sometimes because, say, it's really dangerous to serve a warrant in a no-knock style raid that more or less simulates a break-in.* Someone could have a gun!

I'm assuming they didn't use that excuse when they brought two SWAT teams to arrest some naked people.

Bonus points for threatening streakers with the sex offender list.

CC


*So don't do it that way, CC says, but nobody listens to my advice on these things.

Racist Halloween Costumes and YRUU

2 November 2009 at 15:11
"My mom didn't like my Halloween costume," Beloved Brillient YRUUer said. "And then she followed my friends in the car when we went trick or treating."

"What was your costume?" someone asked.

"I wore a poncho and a sombrero and a little mustache. My girlfriend went as border patrol."

There was silence. Crickets chirped.

"I can see why your mother had a problem with that," I said, also thinking that Mom probably followed BBY in case someone decided that the proper punishment for a punk kid in a racist Halloween costume was an asskicking. Not an unreasonable worry, I'm thinking.

No one else said anything, but the stares that Beloved Brilliant YRUUer got were not friendly ones.

In retrospect, I realize that this was the classic 'teachable moment.'

But I let it pass, at least partially because I was loath to start an entire discussion that would consist of condemning the kid's Halloween costume various ways, even though the costume and the wearer arguably deserved it.

But the more I've thought about it over the last day, the more I have wished that I had started a group discussion on racism. Next weekend, I have a law school thing Sunday morning, so the soonest I will be back in front of the YRUUers is the week after, a day short of a full two weeks after Halloween.

The idea time to start the discussion has passed I know, but how should I handle it from here?

Offer to lead a talk on immigration and focus the discussion on the complexity of the issues? (Possibly too subtle, but still the best alternative I've thought of.)

Actually say, "Hey, I know I didn't say this at the time, but the idea of going for Halloween as a Mexican really bothers me. Can we talk about what that means?" (Puts kid on the spot)

Assume that the Mom already had the talk and that if it didn't get through when she said it, I'm not going to make greater headway. (Cop out)

Thoughts?

CC

Happy Halloween from your pals at the Chaliceblog!

31 October 2009 at 05:03


(LinguistFriend and Joe the Math Guy not pictured.)

Seeking fondue recipies

30 October 2009 at 12:24
TheCSO and I are throwing a "Mad Science" themed party tonight. We're going to have lots of fruit, lots of alcohol and a juicer so people can "experiment" and make their own drinks.

We thought it would be fun to have several fondue pots going as well. But a good friend of ours keeps kosher and we're pretty sure she won't be able to eat a cheese fondue if other people have put meat in it, so we're looking for alternatives.

Any suggestions?

Huh?

29 October 2009 at 21:07
I've been hitting the UU theology mailing list pretty hard recently. Someone posted this today:


Both atheist Christopher Hitchens and pastor Douglas Wilson concur that
society has no use for Christianity if its core story is not true and
it's reduced merely to moral and ethical doctrine. But does this view
act as a challenge to 'religious humanism'?
__________

By David Edwards and Daniel Tencer [edited]
Monday, October 26th, 2009

If the story of Jesus Christ isn't literally true, then Christianity is
a fraud that promotes "a positively wicked doctrine," Christopher
Hitchens told Fox & Friends Monday morning.

Hitchens discussed the role of religion in American society in the wake
of a recent study that shows the number of Americans who claim no
religious affiliation has roughly doubled in the past two decades, from
8.2 percent in 1990 to 15 percent in 2008.

The study, conducted by Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut,
predicts that a full one-quarter of Americans will have no religious
affiliation by 2028. The study notes that the number of non-believers
among younger people is considerably higher than among older people,
suggesting that the trend of Americans growing less religious will
continue in coming years.

Hitchens said Americans are increasingly turning against organized
religion "because they want to push back against theocracy and the
parties of God and the awful challenge they pose to us internationally."

"By the way, your side seems to be winning in public schools, at least
across America," host Gretchen Carlson told Hitchens.

Hitchens appeared on Fox with pastor Douglas Wilson, who appeared along
with Hitchens in the recent documentary Collision, which explores the
battle of ideas between the religious and the non-religious.

The two came to unexpected agreement on one issue: They both attacked
the notion, popular among some secular thinkers, that Christianity is a
socially positive thing even if it's not true.

"If Jesus didn't come back from the dead, then Christianity is appalling
-- it's an appalling fraud and delusion and every unbeliever should
attack it," Wilson said. "Christianity is not good for the world because
it makes people decent and sober and that sort of thing. At the end of
the day, if it's not true -- if it's not objectively true -- then I
don't have any more use for it than Christopher does."

Hitchens echoed that idea, but made it clear he does actually consider
Christianity a fraud.

"They say, well the Bible story's not really true -- they're morality
tales. Don't listen to it, because if it's based on a fraud, if the
virgin birth and the resurrection and the miracles did not occur --
which they did not -- then those teachings are immoral, they teach that
sins can be forgiven by throwing them on to a scapegoat -- a positively
wicked doctrine."


Is it just me, or does this argument not make a lot of sense?

Admittedly, I was raised by liberal Christian parents who taught me that the less-believable parts of the bible were metaphor. Though the article and the guy who forward it to the list attribute this idea to secular thinkers, I hear it a lot more from liberal Christians than I hear it from secular folks.

To me, the idea that a religious story's meaning and value should be evaluated separately from its literal truth makes perfect sense and I'm not sure why anything else would be the case. After all, Jesus himself acknowledged that not all of his stories were literally true. If inventing a story to get a spiritual point across was good wnough for Jesus, one would think it would be good enough for the Reverend Wilson.

Thoughts?

CC

People who angrily storm out of churches

26 October 2009 at 16:14
We've all had seen the dramatic exit from church by somebody. ("I'll have you know I've been running the membership committee for FIFTEEN YEARS. If everyone really wants someone else to run it this year, well, I can certainly see when I'm not wanted!," "I can't be a UU because the UUA is full of theists," "I can't be a UU because the UUA is full of atheists") Etc, etc, and soforth.

But rarely has a church been exited with the verbal panache displayed by Screenwriter and Movie Director Paul Haggis who writes a two-page letter so succinct and thoughtful to the leaders of the church of Scientology that it is frankly amazing that it came from the same dude who wrote "Million Dollar Baby."

CC

Oh, and for the record

15 October 2009 at 22:37
You can add calling Michelle Malkin a "mashed up meatbag with lipstick" to the ongoing list of reasons why Keith Olbermann creeps me out.

Ten terrible Halloween costumes

7 October 2009 at 20:30
From The Washington City Paper's Column The Sexist

Possibly not work safe, at the very least a quick glance might make your coworkers think you're tacky.

CC

Ps. If you're reading this, Hill, don't look, there's a sexy clown.

Ayup.

7 October 2009 at 12:37


This showed up in the ChaliceMailbag. I like it.

I initially suspected this was a hoax

2 October 2009 at 13:27
After all, it kinda looks photoshopped.

But no, Liu Bolin is a real dude who camouflages himself. He's been written up in the London telegraph for example.

Weird, but awesome.

CC

Good article on Roman Polanski

30 September 2009 at 15:05
Answering the many "defenses" people have come up with for him.

The amount of sympathy Polanski gets blows my mind. There are lots of sex-related criminal cases out there with a lot of gray areas. This is not one of them.

CC

CC's favorite Onion Article

29 September 2009 at 14:52
Over the weekend, I was telling FortiesGirl about how several years ago TheOnion.com did this awesome story about Gonzo journalists meeting to discuss the death of Hunter S. Thompson.

So for your edification and hers, here's:

National Gonzo Press Club Vows To Carry On Thompson's Work

In other news, the when you search the Onion's website for "Gonzo," the other story you get is really funny, too:

Stoner Uncle All the Kids' Favorite

CC

For sale, amazing speech, never used

29 September 2009 at 12:38
It must have been strange to be William Safire, have written at least hundreds of speeches and be, I don't doubt, delighted that the finest thing you ever wrote was never read in public.

Gawker has the speech William Safire wrote for Nixon to give if the Apollo 11 astronauts became stranded on the moon. It's really beautiful and sad to even consider those brave guys going up to the moon and the strong likelihood that something would happen and they wouldn't make it back.

CC

You ain't kiddin', Ikea

27 September 2009 at 20:57

Push Polls: They aren't just for politics anymore

26 September 2009 at 17:38
So theCSO and I, dull suburbanites that we are, are headed to the Washington Home Show this weekend. You could save three bucks a ticket by ordering online, so of course we did that. One of the questions that you were REQUIRED to answer before you could but a ticket was:

    Please choose the factor that would be most important to you in considering replacement gutters?
  • Potential Water Damage in basement caused by clogged and overflowing gutters
  • Fear of falling off ladder or roof while cleaning clogged gutters
  • Potential damage to walkways, foundations, driveways, patios or landscaping caused by clogged and overflowing gutters
  • Expense of cleaning clogging gutters
  • Interest in upgrading current conventional gutters to a maintenance free, clog free system
  • Protecting your home’s resale value and give it an edge in today’s highly competitive housing market
  • Eliminating standing water where disease carrying mosquitoes can breed


TheCSO and I, who only have trees that are set back from our house and thus don't really have gutter problems, wanted to write in "Mosquitos? We want our gutters replaced because the pooling water is attracting Mothra."

But alas, that option was not allowed.

Even more annoying, the next option asked how many times per year our gutters clogged and there was no option for "They don't."

So, do you think the discount for online purchases was sponsored by the gutter companies?

And do you think we're going to be getting gutter mail in the future?

Oh well. We saved six bucks.

CC

Marilyn Manson comments on how he has swine flu

26 September 2009 at 17:17
""I know everyone will suggest that fucking a pig is how this disease was obtained. However, the doctor said, my past choices...in 'no way' contributed to me acquiring this mysterious sickness. ... Unfortunately, I am going to survive." "

Quick FAQ on ENDA

25 September 2009 at 13:39
Q: What's ENDA?

A: It's the "Employment Non-Discrimination Act." It's a bill currently before Congress.

Q: What would ENDA do?

A: Extend the protections of title VII to gays, transgendered people and the disabled.

Q: What's title VII?

A: Title VII was the "Equal Pay Act of 1963." It has been subsequently amended, and mostly in liberal directions by the Civil Rights Act of 1991 and the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. Here's what the US Code looks like now.

Q: What does it say?

A: Very briefly, it says that you cannot fire, refuse to hire, or generally mistreat employees because of their gender.

Q: Bitchin'. I'm a woman and I've always wanted to be a Catholic priest. I'll start calling lawyers.

A. Not so fast...er...Sister. Religious institutions are exempted.

Q: But what about a Catholic-owned bookstore?

A: They aren't exempted at all. They cannot refuse to hire you based on your gender. Or your not being a Catholic, which would legally get in the way of the priest thing, too, by the way. Or because you're black. Or because you're French.

Q: We even have to hire the French?

A: If they are the most qualified person for the job. Sucks, don't it?


Q: What will happen if ENDA passes?

A: As far as I can tell, it will simply add sexual orientation, gender identity and disability to the list of protected traits. The church won't have to hire gay people, but the bookstore still will if they are the most qualified for the job. Also, it will not allow for "disparate impact" claims, though frankly I don't really see those being relevant to sexuality or gender identity. My guess is that it has some implications for the disability part, though I will have to think that one through.

Q: What's a disparate impact claim?


A: It's a claim that a hiring practice not directly mentioning a protected class still functionally excludes many members of a protected class. For example, if you have a company rule that all employees have to be at least 5"8' then you will exclude many, many women and relatively few men. The Ricci case made famous in the Sotomayor hearings (the one about the firefighter exam that few black people passed) would be an example. The more common firefighter disparate impact case is when firefighters require people to have a high amount of upper body strength, higher than most women have. That's a fun one because it really makes sense to have that.

Q: Can you get fired for "acting Gay"?

A: Oddly enough, that is pretty much already protected as long as you can define "acting gay" as "acting like the opposite gender." Back in 1989, Price Waterhouse denied a woman a partnership, stating that she wasn't "feminine enough" and the SCOTUS made it illegal to discriminate against someone for "not conforming to gender stereotyping." Here's an example of that ruling protecting a flamboyant gay hairdresser.

Q: Do you think "not feminine enough" was code for "lesbian" in that case?

A: I don't know, the SCOTUS didn't seem to take it that way, but I know at least one hairdresser who was protected anyway because of the way they wrote the ruling.

Q: Anyway, what does Title VII mean for religious freedom?

A: It means that Congress has not defined "the freedom to hire, fire and mistreat people based on your religion" as part of religious freedom since at least 1968.

Q: So people who are complaining that ENDA will reduce religious freedom should not be believed?

A: I don't see how anything they are saying is accurate.

Q: Will this get rid of "Don't ask, don't tell"?

A: Nope. The military is exempted.

Q: This is interesting stuff. I want to read more about it.

A: Well, this post is pretty cool.

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS I WAS ASKED IN THE COMMENTS:

Q: Does it apply to Congress? Many of these kinds of laws don't.

A: As for members of congress themselves, I don't think a claim that one wasn't ELECTED because of a protected trait would fly with the courts.

As for congressional staffers, they are federal employees as far as I know, and sexual orientation has been protected since the Clinton administration and Obama has extended that to gender identity.

As far as people with disabilities are concerned, they are covered by the ADA and the Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

Q: Do you understand what the term "gender identity" means? The definition seems very broad. Are the only possible identities "male" and "female"? How about, "drag queen", "all of the above", or "depends on what time of day we are talking about"?

I was struck by the contrast with the definition of "sexual orientation", which says that you have to be gay, straight, or bi for the law to matter.

"Gender identity" seems much more open ended. If "all of the above" isn't an acceptable identity, why not? And if "all of the above" is an acceptable answer, how does one make sense of the facilities clauses, which seem to assume only two possible "gender identities".
(Edited for length, full version is in the comments.)

A: The non-binary genders thing is an excellent question, albeit one that's a little rudely phrased at the beginning. My impression is that a large number of local areas have non-discrimination laws that include transgender folks. I don't recall that the bathroom issue has resulted in a need for transgender bathrooms which is not to say that they don't effectively exist all over the place labeled as "family bathrooms" and usually used by parents and opposite gender children.

Indeed, as I have a husband, I have three bathrooms in my very own house that are not limited to one gender and we have considered putting in a fourth with a Japanese soaking tub.

As for public areas, due to the existence of stalls, I don't care and am not sure what non-discriminatory reason other people have for caring who else is in the bathroom with them, what their philosophy of gender is and least of all what their physical equipment is.

Seems both polite and practical not to speculate on such things.


CC

CC gets evangelical

24 September 2009 at 16:46
If you enjoy the ChaliceBlog's bleeding-heart-smartass tone, then you should probably be watching "Glee." If you want to catch up, Hulu is keeping five trailing episodes. There have only been four episodes so far, so you should have two weeks to watch the first episode before they take it down.

Fellow fans of "Criminal Minds" will recognize beloved-by-CC character actress Jane Lynch, who plays Spencer's mother on Criminal Minds and does a wonderful job subtly sharing similar facial expressions and little mannerisms with the actor who plays Spencer*. Lynch is in Glee and is amazing as an evil cheerleading coach and has none of those little tics in this performance. Fellow fans of "Boston Legal" will know her as Alan's sex therapist.

I appreciate actors like Queen Latifah who can do a modern Falstaff thing and play essentially the same character over and over and always make it entertaining. Yet actresses like Jane Lynch and Alison Janney who can play vastly different characters in both serious and comic roles, just blow me away. One could argue that this is the baseline definition of "acting," but you don't see it all that much, at least not to the degree that Lynch and Janney can do it.

Anyway, Lynch is good stuff and the show is good stuff. Glee is both sarcastic and sweet and mixes those elements so masterfully that there are plenty of moments when you have no idea what is coming next or how a situation will turn out. It's very hard to surprise me with a plot twist, but Glee has done it. If there seems to be a critical mass of mean characters in the first couple of episodes, you should know that on Glee, as in life, a lot of mean people are that way because they are scared. Glee doesn't shy away from that and things calm down a bit by the third episode as the characters open up a bit and you start seeing their motivations for what they do.

Also, it's set at a high school. A lot of us were pretty mean then.

CC

*I have literally never seen actors playing a parent and child who did this as perfectly as Jane Lynch and Matthew Gray Gubler do in these roles. That Lynch plays a schizophrenic, though a different sort than what I'm used to, makes this subtle playing up of the similarity between mother and son all the more poignant. Not to mention it does a very different riff on the "FBI agent and insightful mentally ill person" dynamic that has been imitated since "Silence of the Lambs" but never equaled.

I would stop posting about ACORN if the story would stop developing

23 September 2009 at 20:37
Latest news on ACORN

Entire content of link posted below"

"Police say a worker with the activist group ACORN who was caught on video giving advice about human smuggling to a couple posing as a pimp and a prostitute had reported the incident to authorities.
National City police said Monday that Juan Carlos Vera contacted his cousin, a police detective, to get advice on what to with information on possible human smuggling.

Vera was secretly filmed on Aug. 18 as part of a young couple’s high-profile expose.

Police say he contacted law enforcement two days later. The detective consulted another police official who served on a federal human smuggling task force, who said he needed more details.

The ACORN employee responded several days later and explained that the information he received was not true and he had been duped.

Vera was fired on Thursday."


Ok, my bad, at least one of the ACORN offices did take the videographers seriously and on the video is just playing along with them to get as much information as possible out of them. This explains why the tax information Vera gave to O'Keefe and Giles was fake and likely to get them caught by the IRS.

Ironically, several posters here and on other blogs have said that the ACORN guys should have all thrown the videographers out of their offices and called the cops like the Philly office did. That would have covered ACORN's ass.

What this guy did would actually have stopped a potential human smuggling operation. If you think about it, playing along with them to get information was a very courageous thing to do that had they been for real could have put him in very real danger. He did it anyway, though.

But don't worry, guys, the ass-covering approach you guys favored won out. The Philly ACORN folks who called the cops still have their jobs. I'm sure staff at the seven other offices who just threw them out do too. The guy who actually tried to stop the human smugglers has been fired because of the outraged cries of people like you.

Congratulations?

CC

Got some extra money? Want to give it to a good cause?

22 September 2009 at 22:50
One of my law student buddies has done some work here. They are nice folks and have raised half of what they need.

You can donate here and they will keep your money separate from everyone else's. If not enough money is raised to save the organization, you get your money back.

I know almost nobody has extra cash these days, but if you do, please think about it.

Thanks,

CC

Like everything with Will Ferrell, it goes on too long,

22 September 2009 at 19:10
but like anything with Masi Oka, it's awesome.

From the ChaliceMailbag

22 September 2009 at 18:21
Someone wrote to ask me if this makes my head explode.

Yes. Yes, it does.

Also, a reader points out that you can get the Chaliceblog (or any other blogger blog) in bound form here. Of course, for $14.95 for the first 20 pages plus 35 cents for each additional page, I'd be happy to READ you the Chaliceblog, tuition bills being what they are.

CC

CC realizes the obvious- last post on ACORN for awhile, I swear

22 September 2009 at 13:53
Question: If the ACORN employees at every single office O'Keefe and Giles visited had taken them seriously and those kids had hours of footage of themselves getting kicked out of a dozen ACORN offices, what would they have?

Answer: They would have footage that could be edited into "evidence" that ACORN kicks out white people who come to ACORN looking for help. As long as O'Keefe and Giles edited out the images of what they were wearing and never released all of their tapes, ACORN would be able to claim that they wanted help buying a whorehouse, but O'Keefe and Giles could just say that was a crazy lie on ACORN's part and O'Keefe and Giles's fans would believe them much as many of them continue to believe in that ACORN employee's non-existent dead ex-husband.

There would be videos all over the internet of angry looking ACORN employees throwing them out and threatening to call the police if they didn't stop trespassing, and O'Keefe and Giles could have shown up on Fox and Friends in their Sunday best, denying those crazy rumors that they came dressed as a Pimp and Ho. Giles could call it part of the same sexism of the left that Sarah Palin faced and O'Keefe could have said that he wore the same suit he was wearing today. (And just not mentioned the big hat and fur coat.) I mean, O'Keefe and Giles lie in the video about ACORN's funding and have repeatedly lied to the press*.

No matter what the ACORN employees did, the moment O'Keefe and Giles stepped into their first ACORN office, ACORN was getting defunded.

I never said those kids were stupid.

CC

*They likely lied under the reasonable assumption that if an ACORN office had called the police, the police wouldn't take a report since nothing illegal had actually occurred. Let the record show that for once CC is pleased at some police overzealousness since the image of the Philly PD's police report makes the point far more clearly that ACORN's repeated requests that O'Keefe and Giles release the tapes from Philly and some of the other offices they visited where they made a huge fuss as they were being thrown out.

Links of the decidedly non-Awesome

20 September 2009 at 17:57
--A Washington Post Editorial about what SWAT raids is here. Well worth reading.

--I find the prose here a little purple for my taste, but I have to say that the author's overall point, that if 13-to-15-year olds have a higher number of sexual assault offenses per capita than any other age group, then we have gotten to the point of defining sexual curiosity as a sexual assault, makes sense to me. The mugshots of kids and teenagers got to me too.

-I am, all things considered, pretty soft on crime. I'm not this soft on crime. I was skeptical of the legitimacy of this story at first (particularly since covering up your crime is often treated as evidence that you knew what you were doing was wrong, so I'm not sure how he even HAD an insanity defense, but then I don't know Washington state law,) but it does look like a real AP story.

-Oh, and the Rapture's coming tomorrow. I think I'm kind of down today because I would pretty much welcome it if only as a change of pace.

ACORN guy's pimp outfit. (Last post on ACORN for awhile I hope)

20 September 2009 at 14:53
At this point, I'm assuming that anyone who is saying that James O'Keefe looked like a realistic pimp hasn't actually watched the video carefully enough to see O'Keefe's outfit.

Luckily, he wore said outfit for a Fox and Friends interview. Here it is, though he wore big sunglasses and a hat in some of the videos and he's omitted them here, and I'm pretty sure he was wearing a wifebeater rather than a suit in at least one video*:




If you can look at the fake fur jacket alone and think anything but "Attendee at a Frat House Pimp and Ho party," then I am forced to believe you've never seen an actual tough guy.

CC

*Hint to all potential fake pimps, that's a step in the right direction.

Total fluff on a Saturday

19 September 2009 at 16:51
In June, our Tivo broke. TheCSO and I were totally like "We should fix that," but I was like "Eh, we have until August 20."

August 20 came and went, and we still have no TIVO.

I was complaining about my Project-Runway-denied-existence to Random Ranter last weekend, and she said "You realize that the old episodes are all online?"

Erm, no, I didn't.

So anyway, I'm caught up on Project Runway now (Team Gordana). But almost even better than that, someone realized that online episodes of PR were the perfect place to do commercials that were actual LESSONS on hair and makeup teaching people to USE L'Oreal and Garnier products to make themselves look awesome.

Very clever.

CC

I hear often that the internet isolates us and makes us narcissistic antisocial parodies of our former selves

19 September 2009 at 02:45
But it also enables half a dozen guys to get together and be like "You know what would be awesome? Let's make a parody of 'Fight Club' set in the late 1910's - early 1920's" and achieve that and put their efforts where the world can find them.

I'd call that about a wash.

Anyway, here's "Fisticuffs Club:"




CC
who views isolation as an inherent part of the human condition and loves her some fisticuffs.

I have a bad habit

18 September 2009 at 16:52
of not pointing out racism when I see it because it is obvious and other people are pointing it out already. But I do sometimes point out that I think something that other people are calling racism ISN'T racism. Thus, I'm later accused of NEVER seeing racism since I only seem to point at things that I think aren't racist.

So, for the record, from that clip from that's going around where one of the guys who made the ACORN film is getting interviewed and the interviewer goes: "So let's get this straight: you're NOT a pimp?"

And the little shit responds, "No. I'm like the whitest guy ever."

Yes, kids, that's racism.

CC
who wouldn't have bothered if her whole blogroll was writing about this, but for once she's the first.

And in sillier law news...

18 September 2009 at 15:00
A lawyer's jailing for My-Cousin-Vinny-like behavior was upheld on appeal.

But if the lawyer should take his case to a higher court, he might be in luck because as the article notes, My Cousin Vinny is one of Justice Scalia's favorite movies.

Told ya I liked the guy.

CC

Sigh.

18 September 2009 at 12:59
Well, that's depressing.

Oh, and several other blogs have noted that when people say that cops are above the law, these two stories from Reading, Pennsylvania are what we mean:

Regular guy from Reading, Pennsylvania takes nudie photos of his 17-year-old girlfriend and becomes a sex offender. Marries girlfriend. Regular guy and wife move a few times without telling the police and Regular guy gets sent to jail for years. Later, an appeals court decides Regular guy wasn't sent to jail for enough years and piles on more.

Cop from Reading, Pennsylvania exposes his dick to his squad room. Cop is not criminally charged. Cop is fired, but has been reinstated because the police department didn't use proper procedure in firing him.


CC

I do not condone the ACORN folks screwing with those people

18 September 2009 at 12:03
It has certainly caused ACORN a lot of trouble and cost them a lot of money.

Anyone who finds the "Pimp" credible has seen too many Pam Grier movies, though, and
I have to say that

Police: ACORN Employee's Murder Confession Not 'Factual'

will likely be my favorite headline this year.

I don't know, it's something about the 'factual'

CC

The liver patient question

17 September 2009 at 17:22
I've asked two people these questions in the comments on my previous healthcare post, but I'm going to go ahead and ask the question here, so if I asked you there, you might was well answer here.

1. If there is a liver patient who refuses to stop drinking, should he or she be given a transplant liver that could go to someone else?

2. Should money be used to pay for that operation that could be used to pay for healthcare for someone else?

Actual doctors or those close to them can correct me on this one, but my impression is that if you won't stop drinking, there's no well in hell the US is going to give you a transplant liver that could go to someone who has stopped drinking or who never drank in the first place.*

Anyway, how do your views on those questions reconcile with your views on my previous proposal for having a personal responsibility element to what heathcare the government will pay for?


EDIT: I took out the snark about how in Britain alcoholics only get liver transplants when they are rich and famous because further looking into the matter revealed that it wasn't true. Well, that the UK gave a liver to a famous athlete who drank himself to death soon afterwards was fully true, but the fact is that the UK puts a great many livers into alcoholics. Meanwhile, if this UK citizen who hasn't had a drink in 15 years doesn't get a liver transplant before his tumors get much bigger, then he will be taken off the transplant list because if you have too much cancer in your body then you are no longer considered a reasonable candidate for tranplant.

If your belief that people should be given the same care regardless of how they take care of themselves rests on an assumption that organs, doctors' time, money to pay for health care and hospital beds are infinite, you are very much mistaken.

EDIT II:

Well, if you were worried about the man who wrote the Guardian article I linked to above, you can stop. Frank Deasy's liver failed today. He died on the transplant list. By some estimates, 1/4 of the donated livers in the UK go into alcoholics.

Great system they've got there.

CC

*Yes, you can get it by flying to a third-world-country and essentially buying it but rich people in countries with nationalized health care do that too.

Jess on God, theism and atheism, CC on theological biodiversity

17 September 2009 at 14:48
Jess has cool stuff to say here, go and read.

One of the things I find fascinating about the theism-atheism debates I see is that atheism really is a pretty varied thing. We all get that there are a billion types of theists*, but that there's quite a lot of theological diversity within atheism too seems to elude people.

I've certainly known atheists of the "Anything remotely related to God offends me and I'm really a nice person for tolerating such stupidity, when I tolerate it at all" variety. Some of those go so far as to call any atheist less extreme an "Uncle Tom."
Nobody asked for my opinion and I know this, but my general take is that this attitude does more harm than good.

When someone is extreme and insulting, I might smile and nod out of sheer desire to have them not turn their wrath on me (which extreme and insulting people usually take as a sign that I'm on their side, so I try not to), but the minute they are gone I find myself talking to other people about what a jerk they are and how wrong they are. Snotty presentation makes serious opinions easy to dismiss, which is not to say I'm not snotty too sometimes**, but I do try to keep that in mind. I also try to keep in mind that a room full of people smiling and nodding from sheer desire to be left alone looks like a room full of agreement to themselves and to any observer.

All that said, I also know plenty of atheists who are way more laid back about it, some allowing that the concept of "God" might be a loaded term for something unsupernatural that they essentially believe in, some not going quite that far but willing to do things for symbolic reasons. Some people who call themselves atheists don't dismiss the theoretical possibility of God, yet feel that we should act like functional atheists and take care of each other because God's not going to***. From a classification perspective, I have issues with people who call themselves atheists and say that they actually believe in a God, just not the Christian God, but I have met such people. And let's not forget Buddhists, though far from all Buddhists accept the term 'atheist,' some do.

Now, one type of atheist might well say that another type of atheist isn't REALLY an atheist because they have different views. Much like when Christians start sniping about who is a real Christian and who isn't, I tend to leave the room at that point. I'm pretty quick to accept people's self-identifications on religion.

Anyway, an atheist recently wrote on the UU blogosphere about how she just sits there when people pray, sing about God and light candles. She seems to think it's nice of her not to call it hooey. That said, I know plenty of atheists who use the prayer time for quiet reflection, sing about God knowing that they don't have to believe every word of the lyrics to get something meaningful out of the song and light candles to symbolically recognize their loved ones who are sick or dying or going through some other sort of strife.

I look at the rack of candles and all of those that are lighted and I am reminded of the suffering in the world and how many people need love and food and medicine and nurture. Even though I'm a theist, I don't view it as a signal flare to get God's attention but a flaming sign that says "Do something for somebody."

I'm guessing an atheist who sits there mentally denouncing the process and thinking about how great they are for not leaping up at that moment and crying "Hooey!" doesn't do that, but I know plenty of atheists who light candles right along with the theists.

Anyway, I've just touched on a bit of the diversity I see, but I think it is important to keep in mind that the people who speak loudest in a movement are often not in the majority and there's a lot more tolerance and reasonableness to go around than might initially appear in these debates.

Don't talk to straw men. Talk to people.

CC



*Ok, Richard Dawkins, with his broad statements about what theists believe, doesn't seem to get it, but most UUs do.

** I get snottiest when I feel I have had to explain the same point many times in the same discussion. By then I tend to assume that the other party is a lost cause as far as getting my point across goes and I'm effectively arguing to amuse myself.

*** I have a whole lot of sympathy for this view.

Ouch!

16 September 2009 at 16:05
This comment stolen from a Libertarian blog I read, and the commenter claims to have stolen it from someone else:

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

Most of the Ayn Rand fans I know are hip enough to find this funny. And actually, Libertarians and Ayn Rand fans usually get along well these days since they have many of the same goals. Though Ayn Rand herself wrote snarky things about libertarians in the 1950's and those who are fundamentalist about her work tend to miss that those criticisms really no longer apply decades later.

But it still made me chuckle.

CC
who knows you saw the punchline coming, but bet you smiled anyway.

Full disclosure: I did my couple of months of reading Ayn Rand when I was 17 and I never made it through Lord of the Rings at all.

Healthcare savings ideas that lots ot people will hate

15 September 2009 at 19:41
1. People who are not taking care of themselves should get less money.

-If you have a condition that requires you to maintain a certain sort of diet, quit smoking or get a certain amount of exercise, you have X amount of time to meet these requirements. If you do not meet these requirements and your doctor doesn't sign a medical waiver* for you, then the percentage of treatment the government will pay for on that condition starts to taper off. Once you meet the requirements, it jumps back up to its previous level.
It should be noted that this proposal is not saying you can't smoke, it is saying that if you don't quit under doctor's orders you might have to pay for your own healthcare for smoking related illnesses. Yes, it's kinda Nanny State, but I don't see it as less so than government-sponsored healthcare in the first place.

-The Government should collect data on how much it costs to treat the average person who was in a car accident and wearing their seatbelt on a hospital-by-hospital basis. Those who were in car accidents and not wearing their seatbelts will be covered for the amount that the government paid the average seatbelt-wearer at their hospital and beyond that are on their own. This could be applied to other stuff, but seatbelt-wearing is the most straightforward.

2. The "I'm ready" form.
A patient may at any time request a simple "I'm ready form" that all hospitals will keep around. After they have signed that form, no treatment will be covered by the government excepting pain relief. If said patient is at a hospital that is committed to fighting and fighting for patients' lives and putting their patients through operations and such to extend life by small amounts of time, they do so at their own expense once the form is signed. "No, wait I'm not" forms rescinding the previous forms would, of course, also be available.

The last two people I've known well who died eventually got to where they wanted to give up and go die at home. Both of them got their wishes because they had forceful personalities and supportive families. We might as well have the form for those people who have neither, but have the same wish. (Item: Most of the rise in healthcare costs has been from Medicare. One third of Medicare bills are from patients who live for less than two years after the treatment.)


I can see lots of disadvantages to these ideas, but I can see advantages too. Comments?



*Some people in wheelchairs, for example, are skinny. But many are not because it's hard to maintain a healthy weight when you don't even walk. If losing weight is a requirement and someone in a wheelchair is having trouble doing that, I'm willing to exempt them if their doctor is.

I really wish this story happened less often

15 September 2009 at 16:30
Intervene when a police officer is doing something wrong? Get a ticket.

I once had a cop give me a ticket for having an expired registration and then ride his motorcycle DOWN THE SIDEWALK to the next street where he could turn into traffic because apparently merging into traffic was too much trouble.

I didn't even bother to register a complaint because I figured no one would listen to me since the man had just given me a ticket. Now I wish I had.

CC

What if evangelicals started saying they were "Standing on the Side of God"?

15 September 2009 at 14:19
They made a fancy campaign with a facebook group, wrote songs, preached sermons, all about how God would be just pleased as punch with them and everything they believe and how their political positions must all be correct ones for the world since they've decided that God agrees.

Their views on Abortion? God's.

Their views on Immigration? God's.

Their views on Gay Marriage? God's.

Their views on minimum wage laws? God's

Their views on whether route 66 should be expanded in parts of Northern Virginia? God's.

Etc, etc, and soforth.

Naturally, this sets up a dualistic situation where if you disagree with evangelicals on a given political position, even if you are an Evangelical, you are standing on the side that God is against.

Wouldn't that campaign seem appallingly arrogant?

Wouldn't the idea that people were saying you're against God if you disagree with them politically be abhorrent to you?

Wouldn't it be pretty laughable that a group of people would decide that God must agree with them in all things?*

So why on earth does the idea of applying the "Standing on the Side of Love" slogan to ALL oppression-related-majority-UU-approved political ideas not completely suck? I realize that we haven't gone as far with it as the evangelicals in my example, but we do seem to be on the way. I can understand the slogan's applicability to same sex marriage, but I think applying it to anything else is a big mistake.

CC

*Which is not to say that plenty of people haven't decided that in the past.

Lady Gaga's date for the VMAs? Kermit the Frog

15 September 2009 at 13:38
Love it.



And I REALLY love that they got an actual Fashion Designer to do Kermit's tux.

Miss Piggy must be livid.

CC

Two deaths, well, three

13 September 2009 at 20:11
1. The Death of Norman Borlaug. Borlaug invented modern high-yield agriculture and has probably saved more lives in poverty-stricken countries than any other person in recent history. As Radley Balko put it "If one way of measuring a life is by the number of other lives a man saved or bettered, Borlaug was certainly one of the greatest human beings who ever lived."

2. The murder of abortion clinic protestor James Poullion, by Harlan James Drake, a guy who went around murdering people he didn't like. Because, you know, if a guy waving signs with fetuses on them in front of a high school pisses you off, the obvious thing to do is murder him in front of said high school.

I didn't say anything about the death of George Tiller because there wasn't much to say and the political footballishness of the treatment of his death bothered me. I feel the same way about James Poullion. Yes, killing a protestor because of his beliefs is wrong. Killing the other guy that Harlan James Drake killed is also wrong. Harlan James Drake has now tried to kill himself. Make that three wrongs. A third guy who pissed Harlan James Drake off has moved out of town because he was found to have been on Drake's enemies list and the next in line for murdering. Four wrongs.

There are stacks of wrongs and there's no right here and it never even makes any sense.

The anti-abortion movement is all "we condemned killing people for their beliefs, now you should condemn it too" which makes more sense than most aspects of this story, but is still sort of ridiculous. I think we're all against killing people for their beliefs, at least as far as press releases are concerned.

Because, like most people, I read a story and what jumps out at me best are things I believed already, I'm left with the following overall impressions:

1. Norman Borlaug spent his life making discoveries, feeding the hungry and helping the poor.
2. George Tiller spent his life helping desperate women and ending the lives of unwanted fetuses.
3. James Poullion spent his life waving signs at high school students.

I don't think the lesson to be learned here is a political one. If anything, it is an anti-political one.

Next time you're thinking about insulting people into do what you want or demanding that the government or any other large organization help somebody else out, why not do something for other people yourself instead?

CC

Ps. Please note what Jess has to say in the comments about Dr. George Tiller.

CC headed to the shore.

11 September 2009 at 19:39
The smartcar is packed, the dog snoozes in the back and we are headed
out of town.

If the cell reception on the Eastern shore hasn't improved, comment
moderation might be slow. So you might have to be lovable and
brilliant on someone else's blog for the weekend.

Take care,

CC

Ps. Ginsburg says "woof"

Sent from my iPhone

Memo to self

10 September 2009 at 20:45
Every idea that you ever have for a novel will come true and thus no longer seem like an original idea.

So you might as well pitch that thriller you were working on in grad school that had exactly this plot.

Ok, it took place in Los Angeles in my novella and there were some murders, but it's still essentially the same plot. Faithful readers recall that this has happened at least a couple of times before.

I think this is the universe telling me to type faster.

CC

I shall repeat myself.

9 September 2009 at 17:58
If I were a parent I would instruct my child as follows:

"If a teacher or administrator at your school ever wants to strip search you, demand that they call your parents. Then sit down on the ground and don't move until I arrive. If anyone bothers you, start repeating the words "lawsuit, lawsuit" until they stop."

Another strip-search story. This one with five girls.

CC
amazed that teenage BOYS never seem to do anything that requires strip searching.

Link on Transracial Adoption and why I disagree with it.

8 September 2009 at 12:33
A poster named "AdoptAuthor" gave me a link to this website. I read it with interest, but I don't agree with almost any of it. A basic premise of several of the essays is that white people are so scared of being called "racist" that they adopt kids of other colors as a built in defense against the charge. Frankly, whatever you do in this culture and whatever you believe, SOMEBODY'S going to call you racist* and while nobody likes to be called racist more than they like to be called "stupid" or any other insulting term, I think most people are disinclined to do something as expensive and life-changing as adoption to defend themselves against a bit of namecalling that they will almost certainly get anyway.

Secondly, a basic premise of the site is that white people adopt kids from other countries because the white people want to feel good, the white people want to not be racists, the white people want a "China Doll." And yes, white people adopt because doing so gives them cultural dominion. As far as I can tell, nobody at TransracialAbductees.com even considers the possibility that white people adopt because they want a child to love and raise and care for.

I'm assuming that under this logic people like my husband and me who are primarily interested in another trait (nerdiness) and are happy with either a white kid or a kid of another race, much like we would be happy with either a gay kid or a straight kid, don't exist at all.

I get that there are a lot of snotty white people out there, I've met some of them. And I don't doubt that transracial adoption is difficult for the children being raised in a culture that may or may not fully accept them. At the same time, lots of people BORN in to a culture don't fit well and go through that and I don't think the parents are putting the kids through it out of selfishness, or at least not selfishness alone.

Also, as far as I can tell, the site never even addresses the question "Don't orphanages in third world countries pretty much suck? If a family that can afford good food, medical bills, an education, etc for a kid can adopt a kid out of an orphanage, isn't that a good thing, all things considered?" I don't doubt that good arguments can be made against this opinion, but someplace on the site somebody should make them rather than simply mocking those who ask the question.

For the record, adopting from another country has never been the plan. We were planning to foster first, for one thing. For another, we aren't looking for a baby and there are plenty of older kids here who need homes in America. One of the minor nice things about looking into being a foster parent then adopting is that nobody really argues that the child would be better off in the foster system. They might argue that you're a white imperialist anyway, but at least no one seems to think the kid would be better off where they were before.

As for other cultural issues, we'd do our best. It's easier with some cultures than others. My entire church is rented out every Saturday morning to a Japanese school where the children of immigrants and diplomats who attend American school five days a week spend Saturday mornings learning their native language and learning about their native culture. Something like that would be no problem.

Where there isn't an organized school, the way to go about it would depend far more on how old the kid is and what the kid wants to do. I would be a little bummed if the child wanted to attend a different church, but I would make it happen as I recognize that being able to make one's own religious choices is a part of growing up and worshiping with people is a wonderful way to feel connected to them.

It's maybe a cop-out to say that given that we are thinking of adopting a kid who is a pre-teen or young teenager, so we can leave a lot of this up to them, but that's pretty much where I stand on it. Or, to put the ball squarely in my race's court, if we adopt a white kid from North Carolina or southern Virginia, we won't cry if they end up a NASCAR-loving southern Baptist, but we aren't forcing grits on anyone who doesn't want to eat them.

Broccoli, maybe, but not grits.

CC
who suspects that years from now, she will reread this post and mock its naive spirit, but it is representative of her thinking right now.


* If you don't believe in affirmative action, then you're a racist because you don't want to atone for white people's misdeeds toward black people. If you do, then you're a racist because you think black kids can't cut it against white kids without affirmative action. As far as I can tell the "you're a racist because you don't want to help people of other races" "No, YOU'RE the racist because you think people of other races need your help" debate goes on with almost any political issue at all related to race. Sometimes in far more sophisticated terms, but that still seems like the essence.

I ask you...

7 September 2009 at 17:59
The Godfather movies notwithstanding, has anybody ever made a gangster movie as good as "Miller's Crossing"?

Eddie Dane: Where's Leo?

Hitman at Verna's: If I tell you, how do I know you won't kill me?

Eddie Dane: Because if you told me and I killed you and you were lying I wouldn't get to kill you *then*. Where's Leo?

Hitman at Verna's: He's moving around. He's getting his mob together tomorrow night.
Whisky Nick's.

Eddie Dane: You sure?

Hitman at Verna's: Check it. It's gold.

Eddie Dane: You know what, yegg? I believe you.

BANG!

Transracial Adoption

7 September 2009 at 13:47
My husband and I don't plan to get foster kids and eventually adopt until I get out of school, but it has been in our long-term plan for awhile, so I do follow articles on adoption and foster care.

TheCSO and I do not care what color the child is (though we'd be happy to do things to help the kid feel attached to his or her culture), we care that the kid is nerdy. Because nerdy kids likely have a rough time in foster care* and because we're nerdy and nerdy kids like and understand us and vice-versa. If the kid has read some Asimov, that's instant bonding right there.

Anyway, I found this article about a black family that adopted a white little girl really interesting. The idea of transracial adoption hurting the kids makes me disinclined to do it, but the number of non-white kids that need homes inclines me again.

Thoughts?

CC

*Having grown up middle class in a wealthy area, the trip to a trendy mall store will be high on the agenda. It's a lot easier to be nerdy when you're dressed like the other kids.

One more on the UU World ads

6 September 2009 at 00:23
"Hey ZombieKid?"

"Yeah?"

"C'mere"

My best friend's ten year old reluctantly leaves his comic book behind and comes over to the couch where I'm lounging.

"Wha-at?" He says in that little kid way.

"Take a look at this," I say, and thrust the now-infamous UU world ad under his nose.

He reads it carefully. I love this child.

"Do you see why people might have a problem with that ad?" I ask.

"Because it makes people who believe in God sound stupid."

"Is that wrong?"

"Yes"

"Why?"

"I dunno. Because it is. People should be able to believe what they want without other people being mean about it."

"Why?"

ZombieKid is a bit lost for an answer as he senses that answering "because being mean to other people because of what they believe is wrong" will just lead to another "why?" and that's the best he can do. His mother intervenes on his behalf with a speech about how our values state that we're supposed to be respectful of people who believe things that are different and that UUs try our best to live with those values. Then she uses the seven principles as a creed. But I love her anyway.

We went into a discussion of the quotes that we thought were OK (Katharine Hepburn is pretty clearly just speaking for herself) and the ones that were problems (Primarily Darrow's and Dawkins').

So yeah, this kid is ten and he might not be able to explain his issues with that ad with the eloquance that Berry's Mom has, but he still gets it.

Sigh.

CC

Brag on yo church

4 September 2009 at 15:11
UUA Way of Life, which is back, BTW, is asking for stories of charitable work you do and your church does.

I know my church does more stuff than I can list, but it made me happy to be able to give him some of the highlights.

If you get a chance, why not head on over there and tell him what y'all are up to and how you're making the world a better place?

CC

Let's Play UU World Editor

4 September 2009 at 11:36
(I don't know whether the editor at UU World sees the ads in advance, particularly since they have a system in place where you reserve your ad space and don't have to submit your ad immediately. If you're a stickler for detail, you might want to pretend to be the business manager. That's up to you.)

Which ads would you take? Which ads would you refuse? Why? Feel free to only address the ones you would refuse. I know the list is long, I kept coming up with new ideas:

- a moderately-phrased ad from a Pro-life group that appeals to the emotions of readers with a headline like "a person is a person no matter how small"

-an ad from a UU reiki practitioner extolling the benefits of Reiki and selling classes on reiki

- An ad from a non-UU Christian group that urges social justice action in God's name
"Thy will be done on Earth' is a call to action."

- An ad from a tobacco company advertising their product for native American-style rituals.

- A less-moderately phrased ad from a pro-life group that says something like "Everyone who supported slavery was free; everyone who supports abortion is already born."

- An ad from a UU Christian group that encourages people in trouble to reach out tho Christ. Something like "Dear God: I have a problem. It's me."

-An ad from an animal rights group that says "Stop kidding yoursef, animal slaughter is murder, go vegan."

- An ad from an organization of reform Jews encouraging people to convert to Judaism

Just curious.

CC

Grandfathering appropriation (Yes, one more on covenants)

1 September 2009 at 22:14
Ok, I'm still on this topic, I'm afraid, mostly because it bumps up against subjects that have interested me for a long time.

Part of me has a sense that the solution to all of this is pretty simple.

1. Theists and atheists alike seem to value what they think of as church covenants. Though an agreement where we come together to talk out common values and figure out what we're going to be to each other is not a covenant in a historical sense, it it remains important to people.

2. PB is a scholar of religion, and I ain't. Indeed, most of her critics are not. LinguistFriend is the closest we've got as someone who formally writes for the Chaliceblog and seems to have no inclination to touch this with a ten foot pole. If I had to guess, I'd say he would be torn because he the religion scholar would lean toward PB's side and he the linguist would think that relying on ancient definitions of words is too normative and denies the changing nature of language. But I don't know.

Anyway, if she the expert on this stuff says that "covenant" must be vertical, I can accept that, though my questions about how one can make a binding agreement with a being that never communicates consent remains.

Frankly, I think that puts us a few insincere people away from Homer Simpson praying:


"Dear Lord: The gods have been good to me. For the first time in my life, everything is absolutely perfect just the way it is. So here's the deal: You freeze everything the way it is, and I won't ask for anything more. If that is OK, please give me absolutely no sign. OK, deal. In gratitude, I present you this offering of cookies and milk. If you want me to eat them for you, give me no sign. Thy will be done."


But anyway, these two premises lead me to the conclusion that the thing to do is to make our own term that is more meaningful than "mission statement," yet isn't "covenant." I was thinking of "pact" and Goodwolve suggested "Commitment, Decision, Rule, Bargain, Treaty, and Handshake." All of those work for me.

At the same time, I am troubled by the churches that have had covenants for decades. Taking away the term from underneath them doesn't seen fair.

And in all fairness, it certainly seems like we grandfather in appropriation after awhile. Pagans aren't asking Christians to cease and desist on Christmas trees, and, to use my favorite example, nobody is asking Chartres Cathedral to take out its labyrinth. Black Christian churches aren't asking white Christian churches to quit singing "go tell it on the mountain" either. Nor are the shakers asking for "Tis a Gift to be simple" to be returned or even sung with its original words.*

We pretty much all agree that appropriation from other cultures is a bad thing. But we pretty much also all agree that after awhile, the appropriated custom/term/song, etc is fair game for the appropriating religion because the appropriating religion has also given it meaning, resonance and history.

So when does this grandfathering kick in? Is there a set period of years? Is it a generation or two or five?

CC
still chewing on this stuff.


*I only know examples from Christianity. I'm sure there are others from other faiths. This is my lack of knowledge about world religions, not an intentional attempt to slam Christianity.

"Knee Deep" and gawking

30 August 2009 at 23:59
Has anybody seen a documentary called "Knee Deep"? It's about a farmer up in Maine who shoots his estranged mother after the mother (who had left the family farm years before but had technically inherited it since she and the father never divorced) sells the farm to a developer out from underneath him. The mother lives and refuses to testify against her son, but he never sees any of the money.

The neighbors seem to think the shooting was largely justified*, and the film crew talks to a lot of them. It's interesting stuff.

At the same time, it bothers me in that there are moments when it seems to gawk at the people on camera because, well, they sound like a bunch of weird rednecks. The kind of connection to the land that causes shootings for that reason is very alien to the average middle class person and the film gives lots of time and space for some of the seemingly bizarre things that people are saying to sink in.

It doesn't directly make fun of them, but in some ways it is lke watching a documentary on a strange species of person.

Anyway, seen it? Thoughts?

CC

*the farmer had dropped out of school in the sixth grade to work on the farm and nobody seemed to have a problem with that, so this was a VERY rural community. And FWIW, around the time the kid dropped out of school to work, the mother went to nursing school and left the father as soon as she got her degree, so she was pretty awful in her way.

A couple of questions about covenants

28 August 2009 at 12:00
1. I can totally see the "Covenant Initiated by God" concept working in Biblical times when God was pretty vocal about what God wanted. But if we're to have covenants these days, then how are we to know that God is initiating them if God is silent on the matter?

2. Also, how do we have a binding agreement between parties without the consent of one of the parties (i.e. God)

3. Assuming PB's idea that one cannot have a covenant per se without reference to God catches on, and it might well do that as she is a well-respected and convincing person, then I assume that covenants will not be used in UU churches much as most UU churches have at least some atheists and for the church to think of itself as "A people covenanted with God...and those guys" probably wouldn't work. As the word "covenant" has been used for secular agreements for a long time, I don't see why we can't stick with that, but if we can't it would be nice to come up with another term for the process of a church coming together to talk about who they want to be as a community and to make agreements with one another because the process still strikes me as a sacred one even without God's direct involvement. The best I can do for a name for that is "Pact," yet I find that "Pact" has Faustian* overtones.

4. As an aside, if we use "covenant" the way it is used in property law, PB's definition can still more or less work. Covenants in property law are rules that govern the use of the land set by a seller** or giver of the land, so I suppose one could say that God is giving the church to the people provided they obey God's rules. But it is unusual for those rules to be discussed and put together by the recipients of the land without direct input from the original owner.


CC


* Fausto-ian overtones I could live with. I think.=

**For a simple example, you can sell your land to someone with a condition that they will never cut down your favorite tree or move the grave of your dog Fluffy. If they violate the covenant, then you can sue them. The most evil and the most famous kinds of restrictive covenants are the kinds that don't allow houses to be purchased by black people, but those covenants have been found unconstitutional by the SCOTUS (Shelley v. Kraemer) and thus unenforceable.

The awesomeness of Wawa

27 August 2009 at 23:01
There's a Wawa outside of DC off of 95. When I was visiting theCSO at school I would always stop there, and indeed, we still stop there anytime we're going down 95. One time some seven years ago, I stopped there and noticed a Goodwill across the parking lot. I decided to pop in to the Goodwill and get a tank top since the day was warming up.

I found my wedding dress at that Goodwill for $150.

Thanks, Wawa.

The Washington Post also recognizes the greatness that this convenience store of the Gods represents and has written about it.

CC

Ps. The story mentions a couple who loved Wawa so much they got married in one. That couple is not us. Though we did once joke about having our wedding reception in a palatial rest stop in Dinwiddie County, VA.

I'm aware that this falls into the category of "stupid rich people stuff"

27 August 2009 at 12:08
But I am charmed by this story of the owner of Papa John's Pizza tracking down the Chevy Camaro he sold when he was just starting out and paying the current owner $250,000 for it.

CC

The other side of the "language of reverence" debate

26 August 2009 at 06:57
A few years ago, former UUA President Sinkford set off a minor tiff among my humanist buddies by saying that we needed to go back to a "language of reverence." At the time, I think I said that the words themselves didn't bother me but I had concerns in that:

1. Using the same words different ways makes communication difficult.

From an old post of mine on the subject:

"“Sin” as defined by the shorter OED: Transgression of divine law, a violation of a religious or moral principle. (It being the shorter OED, the actual definition is longer and more complicated, but that’s the jist.)

“Sin” as defined by my office’s receptionist, a Mormon: “Doing wrong. Well, there are different kinds of wrong I guess. I guess sins are wrong that’s against the bible.”

I’d say that if you ask 100 people to define sin, 99 of the resulting definitions would be somewhere in the neighborhood of those two.

CC is one of those people who has wrestled mightily with the subject of sin. If you ask CC to define sin, you’re going to get “It’s something you do, anything you do, that distances you from what makes you a good and useful person. If you reverently and respectfully pull the plug on your terminally ill father to relieve his pain, that’s legally murder, but I don’t think it has to be sin. If you cheat on your taxes and feel so bad about it that it distances you from your life and the good that you do, or makes you feel like doing the right thing doesn’t matter, that’s sin.”"

I don't think there's anything wrong with having a different concept of "sin" and I think they are in the same spirit, but if the Mormon and I wanted to have a conversation about sin, we would have to very carefully stake out what we meant by a term that is loaded on both sides. Perhaps using non-reverent language would make these conversations easier.


2. A lot of the "language of reverence" uses metaphor that makes some traditional assumptions that might not be true.

"God the father" would be a tough concept for a former victim of child abuse.

If your great-grandparents were slaves, then the term "Master" would likely not be spiritually useful, or at least would be loaded for you in a way that it wouldn't be for other people.

And yes, as discussed on the blogosphere at length once, "Lord" raises sexism and class implications that lots of people find alienating.

This is not to say that these terms are problematic for everyone. If you had a great Dad who loved and cared for you, you never really had to apply the issue of slavery to yourself personally and you're ok with what looks to some like grafting a secular aristocratic term onto a man whom God chose to have born in a barn or on to God, then those words work and more power to you. But I think they no longer have the near-universal appeal they once did and I don't think it is coming back.




Humanists pretty much don't win any battles in UUism any more and this is yet another one that we lost and the language of reverence is very much alive in a great many UU churches whether humanists like it or not. (And this theistic humanist admittedly likes it fine most of the time.)

Anyway, in her recent hotly debated post about covenants, PB raises yet another question about spiritual language. When does redefining a spiritual concept and using it for oneself become appropriation? It had never occurred to me that my view of sin (which is massively oversimplified Tillich in the first place) could be read as an appropriation of the traditional concept of sin, not from Tillich, but from Christianity in general. (Who got it from the Jews)

Where does the concept of "appropriation" pay in to the "language of reverence" debate? Does it matter if we are "re-appropriating" a concept that was appropriated by the religion we're taking it from?* Is there an easy guide to "appropriation" that makes it clear whether we are appropriating or not?**

I asked PB in her comments and now I'm asking you.

CC

*Gotta say, it makes me nuts when people accuse each other of "appropriating" the labyrinth from Christianity.

**The best I can do is that it is appropriation when one uses a ritual, term or practice in a way completely divorced from the actual spirit of the thing being appropriated. Gwen Stefani wearing a bindi because it looks cool, for example. But I tend to think it is OK when much of the original spirit is kept intact, (e.g. a day of fasting and meditation and prayer is done in all many religions, and I don't think it is inappropriate for a UU to do the same. Or a child dedication that looks a lot like a baptism.) then it isn't appropriation. But a lot of people do a lot of goofy things in what they perceive as the spirit that the Native Americans intended in the Native American ritual said people are stealing, so I'm aware that my definition is far from perfect.

When I first started following UUism online...

23 August 2009 at 20:09
One constantly heard about how badly theists were treated in UU congregations. These days, you really don't hear about it as much any more. I'm a theist, of a sort, and a political moderate, of a sort, and my politics are offended far more often than my faith is.

I don't think I'm alone. Indeed, even at the time, I liked to figure out which churches the complaining theists were attending and I often found that the churches were having theist-friendly sermons and adult ed classes. One time a woman complained that her church had denied her the right to throw a Christmas pageant because they hated Christianity and theists. When she had left the church and was still complaining about it a year later, I checked back. The following year they did have a Christmas pageant. I'm fairly certain that while there are some very humanist churches where theists would feel less comfortable, there are an equal amount or greater number of theistic churches where atheists feel less comfortable and the majority are in the middle where neither theists nor humanists get exactly what they want but neither is completely overshadowed either. My church has been 50/50 for a long time and my understanding is that it's pretty common for a church to be something close to that.

Anyway, back when I was constantly having this conversation, I would sometimes link to something like this and point out that it still sucks in many ways to be an atheist in America, so if atheists are a little snotty sometimes it return, that's probably not the end of the world.

Out of habit, I'm doing it again. Giving potential adoptive parents this much grief just because they are atheists? REALLY New Jersey?

CC


CLARIFICATION: As Tom noted in the comments, this story is actually a few decades old, something I didn't notice and the person who sent the story to me didn't notice either I'm guessing. Joel also notes that this stuff is still happening to Pagans.

FWIW

22 August 2009 at 01:12
Radley Balko, whom I read faithfully and sometimes steal jokes from, has been writing about this for years. It's great that CNN has finally picked it up, though I wish they had credited him.

Of course, I rarely do. Now, go read about the guy whom I sincerely hope is the world's least competent forensic pathologist.


Or you can read about him here.

And here

And, for the full story, here.

CC

Though I'm the last one to feel charitably toward someone who was mean to pit bulls...

21 August 2009 at 00:12
I don't demand that Vick not be allowed to play or anything.

That said, I'm certainly not getting Justice Ginsburg (my dog) one of these.

CC

Ps. In happier news, here's a nice story about what is happening with the pit bulls seized from Vick's dogfighting ring. The dog in the picture looks very much like Justice Ginsburg, down to her "look how nonthreatening I am" pink collar.

Question for Whole Foods boycotters

17 August 2009 at 12:19
Let me get this straight:

1. Whole Foods pretty much treats its employees exactly the way liberals want a company to*. (Please don't give me a link to any page that quotes the union organizers' words as gospel and accepts them uncritically.)

2. The CEO of Whole Foods writes in the New York Times that he doesn't believe in single-payer health care and essentially doesn't think the Obama plan will work.

3. Insisting that the CEO has a right to express an opinion, which he does, and you have a right to boycott, which you do, y'all are boycotting Whole Foods because their CEO wrote things you don't like, isn't standing with Obama, or however you choose to phrase it. Instead, you're shopping at farmer's markets (best option), Trader Joe's (second) or some supermarket that pays minimum wage but has a CEO who is smart enough not to piss off the "disagreement is treason" liberal establishment.

4. I guess my question boils down to this: Y'all are boycotting because the CEO spoke out against single-payer health care, right? And single payer health care has the government acting as the sole health insurer for the entire country.

So, if you get your single payer health care, and you're not happy with your insurance, who are you going to boycott?

CC
who, all that said, really likes what Returning has to say about "Death Panels. CC had never really understood what people meant by that term and had assumed something more reasonable albeit still unpleasant.

*If you're about to make a joke in my comments about how you're boycotting Whole Foods because you never shop there because it is so expensive, consider that providing free health care for even part time employees ain't cheap. If you're not willing to pay higher grocery prices to shop someplace that gives this health coverage, pays a living wage, etc, why are you fighting for legislation that would but these expenses on your grocery and tax bill anyway?

Happy Awesome Day!

17 August 2009 at 01:01
Awesome Day is the official holiday of the Chaliceblog. I invented it when I found out that four things happened on August 16:

-Elvis died

-Madonna was born

-Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi got married.

-TheGnome was born

So I decided to deem August 16 "Awesome day" to commemorate its significance as an important day in the lives of so many awesome people. For me, it's a day to look around at the world and focus on the good things.

I've had a counter up on my blog since last August 16. I was going to do a day full of posts about awesomeness and awesome things today. But then last week my Dad fractured his arm in multiple places and I spent some time at the hospital, and theCSO and I decided to teach ZombieKid and theGnome to play Dungeons and Dragons and my brother created a bunch of family drama and, well, I forgot.

But I did remember before it was over at nine p.m. For what it's worth, I spent many hours of today at theGnome's birthday party, where I refereed little children, swam until I was exhausted and made theCSO a seriously wonderful pair of tie-dyed purple socks. I had Thai food for dinner with my husband, and now I'm updating my blog.

The easy way to write this would be to say that the most awesome thing about awesome day was forgetting it and living my happy life with my great friends. But I do have some regret about being so in the moment, and glad I have a chance to spend at least the last few hours thinking about how lucky I am to live the life that I live.

So today, or tomorrow, or someday, take a minute in honor of the little holiday I spent a year planning and almost forgot, and think about what's great about your life, all the good people you know and the prettiest view you've ever had looking out a window. Think about your favorite painting, your favorite food and snuggling up in your favorite place with your favorite book. Think about the best quality that your least favorite person has and something wonderful about the worst time of your life.

Here's hoping that looking at the good will help us think about what is true, just and beautiful in the world already, and appreciate truth, justice and beauty when we see it.

I wish you a Happy Awesome Day, and a Happy year until the next one.

CC

I love the chilnerds.

16 August 2009 at 02:40
Jana-who-Creates, her husband, her children, theCSO and I are planning a group Halloween costume as attendees at a "Mad Scientists' Convention." I am planning to be Dr. Bunsen Honeydew from the Muppets, and there was some debate the other day about which Mad Scientist theCSO should go as.

We're Rocky Horror fans in our house and even have a cat named Dr. Frank-N-Furter, so of course, at one point, I said,

"Hey, theCSO could be Dr. Frank-N-Furter."

Jana laughed and the conversation moved on.

She reports that later, the children were sitting in the car saying,

"Yeah, theCSO WOULD be a great Dr. Frank-N-Furter."

"He would have SO MUCH FUN being Dr. Frank-N-Furter"

Jana was perhaps wondering if her kids had been watching MTV, when one of them said.

"He could have fuzzy ears and a furry tail and he could meow and everything!"

CC
โŒ