The book "No More Mr. Nice Guy" was highly recommended by a friend of mine. Although it does not affect me as much as it did him, I must concede that books that deal with abstract issues such as this one does, with its psychoanalytical subject, often can leave the reader feeling confused and left in the dust. I feel this is particularly true when the books address a need the reader does not personally feel very strongly, as is the case with me and this book.
That is not to see the book is without merit or features that appealed to me. For starters, the publishers of "No More Mr. Nice Guy" wisely chose an aesthetically pleasing bookbinding where the pages are neatly collated and evenly trimmed. The glue also holds the pages together very admirably.
I especially was pleased with their use of a Serif font. (I believe it was Garamond, a font that revolutionized print media with the facility with which the eye absorbs words printed in it.) The point size also was appropriately chosen; I did not need a magnifying glass to make out the words, nor did I feel like I was reading a "moo-moo" edition of a big with overlarge type.
Although I cannot comment on the book's long-term durability, I will say that the print edition was pleasantly free of the glare that accompanies the electronic edition.
In short, if you are looking for a book to help you understand how to express your emotional, mental and social needs as a male -- and most of all, if you want a book that is pleasing to the eye -- I must recommend "No More Mr. Nice Guy."
Sunday, September 07, 2003
Sunday, August 31, 2003
revolve
Remember discussion about the TNIV and whether it was worthwhile? As makeovers of the Bible go, that was mild. Check out Revolve!
I've been giving this way more thought than it deserves, and what it's boiling down to for me is the question of whether this is marketing or presentation.
I'm all for presenting timeless truths in a ways that can be understood by each generation. That's why I prefer churches that use contemporary services, with modern music, dramas, video clips and so on. They're using popular artistic expressions as a way to engage the people of their target generation with the gospel. In a good church that practices these things, the substance is rich, the meaning is real, and the timeless stories the Bible contains about jealousy, fratricide, love, sacrifice, resentment and betrayal, and most of all redemption gain new resonance with an audience that might never hear or understand these things otherwise.
Without a doubt we could do some things to present the Bible better.
The problem for me is when we come into marketing. Marketing is generally as phony as a three-dollar bill and, when done this way, has about as much currency with Gen X as that bill. (I'll let members of Gen Y and subsequent generations say for certain what works for them.)
We're past the point with our culture that celebrity endorsements and attractive faces will sell Bibles. That comes across as pure hokum because everybody knows the Bible isn't cool. About the only people who are going to buy these Bibles are Christian teens who want to be be cool within Christian circles. Maybe my imagination is too small, but I don't see this topping bestseller lists.
Marketing like this, while it is well intentioned, is not the way Christ models for us to draw people to God. He also met people where they were at, but in a decidedly personal, nonmarketing way. He never acted cool, and when you get down to it, the gospel is as fundamentally uncool as you can get. It tells us things like this: "Sell all you have and give it to the poor, and then follow me." Or: "If you have two cloaks, give to the one who has none." Or: "Don't resist an evil person; if he sues you for your tunic, give him your shirt also; and if he strikes you on one cheek, turn and offer him your other one also."
It's about not trying to control everything that comes your way, and accepting that some really unfair sh*t happens from time to time.
Last year around this time, you may recall I was in a pretty desparate situation. My son -- I still think of him that way, even though he wasn't born to me -- was about to be taken away from me and returned to the people who he had been born to.
A well-connected politician who knew the situation offered to intervene. Although he couldn't guarantee anything, he seemed to feel it was pretty certain that if he were to step in, Isaac would not return to his biological parents. Other colleagues of mine had ideas on how I could use media leverage or other connections to stop Isaac from heading back into an abusively neglectful situation.
Would Isaac have stayed if I had put up a legal fight and let the politicians who offered to do something to keep him here? Maybe. And you could even argue that I would have been saving him from the heartache of what's happened to him since, not to mention the grief it caused Evangeline when he moved out.
That's not the way of the Cross, though. The way Christ teaches and models for us lies not in fighting tooth and nail to protect our rights or to keep others from hurting us, but in going to the Father in prayer, and sometimes in just dying.
That's a religion for TOTAL LOSERS. Oddly enough, when we make that our practice, that does a lot more to draw people in than marketing the Bible and its inner beauty strategies probably ever will.
I've been giving this way more thought than it deserves, and what it's boiling down to for me is the question of whether this is marketing or presentation.
I'm all for presenting timeless truths in a ways that can be understood by each generation. That's why I prefer churches that use contemporary services, with modern music, dramas, video clips and so on. They're using popular artistic expressions as a way to engage the people of their target generation with the gospel. In a good church that practices these things, the substance is rich, the meaning is real, and the timeless stories the Bible contains about jealousy, fratricide, love, sacrifice, resentment and betrayal, and most of all redemption gain new resonance with an audience that might never hear or understand these things otherwise.
Without a doubt we could do some things to present the Bible better.
The problem for me is when we come into marketing. Marketing is generally as phony as a three-dollar bill and, when done this way, has about as much currency with Gen X as that bill. (I'll let members of Gen Y and subsequent generations say for certain what works for them.)
We're past the point with our culture that celebrity endorsements and attractive faces will sell Bibles. That comes across as pure hokum because everybody knows the Bible isn't cool. About the only people who are going to buy these Bibles are Christian teens who want to be be cool within Christian circles. Maybe my imagination is too small, but I don't see this topping bestseller lists.
Marketing like this, while it is well intentioned, is not the way Christ models for us to draw people to God. He also met people where they were at, but in a decidedly personal, nonmarketing way. He never acted cool, and when you get down to it, the gospel is as fundamentally uncool as you can get. It tells us things like this: "Sell all you have and give it to the poor, and then follow me." Or: "If you have two cloaks, give to the one who has none." Or: "Don't resist an evil person; if he sues you for your tunic, give him your shirt also; and if he strikes you on one cheek, turn and offer him your other one also."
It's about not trying to control everything that comes your way, and accepting that some really unfair sh*t happens from time to time.
Last year around this time, you may recall I was in a pretty desparate situation. My son -- I still think of him that way, even though he wasn't born to me -- was about to be taken away from me and returned to the people who he had been born to.
A well-connected politician who knew the situation offered to intervene. Although he couldn't guarantee anything, he seemed to feel it was pretty certain that if he were to step in, Isaac would not return to his biological parents. Other colleagues of mine had ideas on how I could use media leverage or other connections to stop Isaac from heading back into an abusively neglectful situation.
Would Isaac have stayed if I had put up a legal fight and let the politicians who offered to do something to keep him here? Maybe. And you could even argue that I would have been saving him from the heartache of what's happened to him since, not to mention the grief it caused Evangeline when he moved out.
That's not the way of the Cross, though. The way Christ teaches and models for us lies not in fighting tooth and nail to protect our rights or to keep others from hurting us, but in going to the Father in prayer, and sometimes in just dying.
That's a religion for TOTAL LOSERS. Oddly enough, when we make that our practice, that does a lot more to draw people in than marketing the Bible and its inner beauty strategies probably ever will.
Saturday, August 30, 2003
growing in contentment
As I write this, my 33rd birthday slowly but surely is slipping further and further into the past.
Thirty-three doesn't seem like a particularly significant milestone. For one thing, it lacks that ending zero we usually associate with landmark ages and anniversaries. Additionally, while it's too far up to be considered truly young, it's also shy of what we generally consider middle-age, and nowhere near old.
Still, it's definitely something. When he died at the age of 33, Alexander the Great had conquered most of the ancient world, spreading the Greek language across three continents and seeding civilizations from Egypt to India with pockets of Hellenistic thought.
By the time of his death in 323 B.C., Alexander the Great had lain the foundations for what eventually would become modern Western civilization. In contrast, I'm the managing editor of two weekly newspapers and like to make fun of inspirational e-mail. Somehow, that just doesn't seem all that impressive by comparison.
Three years ago, when I turned 30, I made an ironic list of ways I would live m life differently if I were given the chance. Two of my favorite regrets were that I had tried to do something self-fulfilling rather than making millions of dollars, and that I had engaged immediately in trying to make the world a better place rather than saving such altruism for my retirement years.
Three years later, I'm still not very close to making it big. As any career journalist will admit, this is not a profession that pays especially well. The salary is hard to quantify, but it's somewhere between "diddly" and "squat." Nor do I see this as likely to change, since by my nature I don't seek jobs where the principal reward is pecuniary.
The truth is that I know what my future will bring. In the next 40 or 50 years, assuming I live that long, I'll probably enjoy moderate success as a writer. I'll write and publish a few books, possibly tour a little bit to promote them, and then I'll die. Within a few years, no one aside from family members and a few close friends will remember me.
I not only know that, I'm content with it. At the moment, the chief joys in my life are my wife, Natasha, and our two daughters, Evangeline and Rachel. They are more important to me than any career ever could, and the time I spend with them is more exciting than any news story, no matter how hard-hitting or exclusive it is.
Evangeline is almost 4, and the evenings I spend with her are the highlights of my work week. They're a nonstop whirlwind of playing hide-and-seek, holding ticklefests and all-around commotion before we settle down for a bowl of ice cream, stories and bedtime.
On weekends, whatever we can do together, we do. She has helped me to do everything from baking cookies, to turning compost and opening presents for Christmas.
Rachel is just shy of her 10-month mark. She lightens the load on my shoulders as soon as I come in the front door and she greets me with her wide, grinning toothlessness. One of the great joys of being a father is to watch her grow, as she slowly unfolds her language skills and takes her first, tottering steps into the world
History tells us that Alexander the Great built one of the greatest empires the world has ever known. Ruling the ancient world without descending into the barbarism other emperors were known for, he united the city-states of Greece before conquering Turkey and Phoenicia, subduing Egypt and building an empire that reached as far east as India.
That's impressive, but what we often forget is that when Alexander the Great died among the ziggurats of Babylon, it was after a night of carousing. He had conquered the entire world, and found it to be a desolate and empty thing because there were no challenges left. He died in despair.
In many ways, he's a great prototype for today's professional. Many men, including my own father, lament that they spent too much time at the office and missed the best years of their lives with their children. I hope one day to quip that I spent all my time with my family and missed the best days of my career.
That would be a good life.
Thirty-three doesn't seem like a particularly significant milestone. For one thing, it lacks that ending zero we usually associate with landmark ages and anniversaries. Additionally, while it's too far up to be considered truly young, it's also shy of what we generally consider middle-age, and nowhere near old.
Still, it's definitely something. When he died at the age of 33, Alexander the Great had conquered most of the ancient world, spreading the Greek language across three continents and seeding civilizations from Egypt to India with pockets of Hellenistic thought.
By the time of his death in 323 B.C., Alexander the Great had lain the foundations for what eventually would become modern Western civilization. In contrast, I'm the managing editor of two weekly newspapers and like to make fun of inspirational e-mail. Somehow, that just doesn't seem all that impressive by comparison.
Three years ago, when I turned 30, I made an ironic list of ways I would live m life differently if I were given the chance. Two of my favorite regrets were that I had tried to do something self-fulfilling rather than making millions of dollars, and that I had engaged immediately in trying to make the world a better place rather than saving such altruism for my retirement years.
Three years later, I'm still not very close to making it big. As any career journalist will admit, this is not a profession that pays especially well. The salary is hard to quantify, but it's somewhere between "diddly" and "squat." Nor do I see this as likely to change, since by my nature I don't seek jobs where the principal reward is pecuniary.
The truth is that I know what my future will bring. In the next 40 or 50 years, assuming I live that long, I'll probably enjoy moderate success as a writer. I'll write and publish a few books, possibly tour a little bit to promote them, and then I'll die. Within a few years, no one aside from family members and a few close friends will remember me.
I not only know that, I'm content with it. At the moment, the chief joys in my life are my wife, Natasha, and our two daughters, Evangeline and Rachel. They are more important to me than any career ever could, and the time I spend with them is more exciting than any news story, no matter how hard-hitting or exclusive it is.
Evangeline is almost 4, and the evenings I spend with her are the highlights of my work week. They're a nonstop whirlwind of playing hide-and-seek, holding ticklefests and all-around commotion before we settle down for a bowl of ice cream, stories and bedtime.
On weekends, whatever we can do together, we do. She has helped me to do everything from baking cookies, to turning compost and opening presents for Christmas.
Rachel is just shy of her 10-month mark. She lightens the load on my shoulders as soon as I come in the front door and she greets me with her wide, grinning toothlessness. One of the great joys of being a father is to watch her grow, as she slowly unfolds her language skills and takes her first, tottering steps into the world
History tells us that Alexander the Great built one of the greatest empires the world has ever known. Ruling the ancient world without descending into the barbarism other emperors were known for, he united the city-states of Greece before conquering Turkey and Phoenicia, subduing Egypt and building an empire that reached as far east as India.
That's impressive, but what we often forget is that when Alexander the Great died among the ziggurats of Babylon, it was after a night of carousing. He had conquered the entire world, and found it to be a desolate and empty thing because there were no challenges left. He died in despair.
In many ways, he's a great prototype for today's professional. Many men, including my own father, lament that they spent too much time at the office and missed the best years of their lives with their children. I hope one day to quip that I spent all my time with my family and missed the best days of my career.
That would be a good life.
Wednesday, August 27, 2003
no time for glibness
One of the observations that struck me when I read a friend's journal, as I shared with my wife today, is that Christians often make glib or overquick statements concerning homosexuality and how thoughtless we are when we do that.
My friend presented two of those on her site, the "Homosexuality is an abomination before the Lord; yea, gays and lesbians are pimples upon his face, and he shall pop them" view, and the "Well, it's a sin, but it's no worse than any other sin" attitude.
The first, while it neatly sums up the traditional view of homosexuality, fails to do anything but rudely say "I disapprove of you and what you do and so does God" while the other dismissively equates a very basic and driving part of a person's nature -- their sexuality -- with practices and behaviors that are less deeply rooted in who a person is, such as a person's inclination to fib on their taxes or a disrespect for authority. Those latter things, and other practices like them, while they may be deeply ingrained in a person and difficult at times to deal with are nowhere near as fundamental to a person's psyche as their sexuality.
In each case, the response indicates a failure to connect with another person as another person, to see their inherent worth and to love them in the true, personal sense that Christ calls us to. It made me stop and wonder how I had treated my friend, and whether I had shown her the same unconditional love Christ has, or if I had treated her as less than a person in herself, and just as a gay Christian (as though that were all she is) or if I had treated her in either manner so described, or in some other way that I haven't described yet.
And that of course inspires any number of other thoughts, including the oft-stated observation that Christianity is a very simple religion to "get" -- that accepting Christ's death on our behalf reconciles us to God -- but also one that is impossibly hard to follow in truth. This whole idea of loving other people and being part of a community is just impossible to get.
My friend presented two of those on her site, the "Homosexuality is an abomination before the Lord; yea, gays and lesbians are pimples upon his face, and he shall pop them" view, and the "Well, it's a sin, but it's no worse than any other sin" attitude.
The first, while it neatly sums up the traditional view of homosexuality, fails to do anything but rudely say "I disapprove of you and what you do and so does God" while the other dismissively equates a very basic and driving part of a person's nature -- their sexuality -- with practices and behaviors that are less deeply rooted in who a person is, such as a person's inclination to fib on their taxes or a disrespect for authority. Those latter things, and other practices like them, while they may be deeply ingrained in a person and difficult at times to deal with are nowhere near as fundamental to a person's psyche as their sexuality.
In each case, the response indicates a failure to connect with another person as another person, to see their inherent worth and to love them in the true, personal sense that Christ calls us to. It made me stop and wonder how I had treated my friend, and whether I had shown her the same unconditional love Christ has, or if I had treated her as less than a person in herself, and just as a gay Christian (as though that were all she is) or if I had treated her in either manner so described, or in some other way that I haven't described yet.
And that of course inspires any number of other thoughts, including the oft-stated observation that Christianity is a very simple religion to "get" -- that accepting Christ's death on our behalf reconciles us to God -- but also one that is impossibly hard to follow in truth. This whole idea of loving other people and being part of a community is just impossible to get.
Monday, August 25, 2003
mad over 'crazy'
Back in the 1970s, Marvel Comics published a magazine called "Crazy" that was more or less its response to MAD Magazine, which is published by arch-rival DC Comics. I only ever saw one issue of "Crazy"; ironically, it was the final issue. It was amazingly clever, much funnier than I recall "Cracked" or "Mad" ever being.
The issue started off with the secret origin of Caspar the Friendly Ghost. In it, Caspar reveals to Wendy the Witch that his father killed both Caspar and Caspar's mother -- stabbed them to death, as I recall -- and told police that a madman had done it, so he could collect on their life insurance policies. Wendy and Caspar proceed to attack Caspar's father, who is living it up on the insurance money. He crashes his fancy car into a tree, and then Caspar kills him pretty gruesomely. Not a very pleasant story, but it was done so over-the-top and with the same innocent, clean style of illustration as the old Harvey Comics that I'm laughing just remembering it.
One of the other features was a rip-off on the Smurfs, featuring such standbys as Weak-Bladder Smurf. "Papa Smurf has to take a bath because I smurfed on him!" he proudly declares, which remains my all-time favorite smurf line.
Then there was a spoof they did of some of the old Avengers comics around the time of the Kree-Skrull War back in the early 1970s. As I recall, the story was that the Skrulls had kidnapped a cow that the Vision had fallen in love with. Great send-up of the Avengers, with the original artwork intact:
"That's it, Captain America! Throw away your shield -- your only means of defending yourself against these far more powerful bad guys."
"Just don't think of pulling these ridiculously long and exposed cables that obviously supply our power."
"Are you going to hit them with your repulsor rays?"
The issue started off with the secret origin of Caspar the Friendly Ghost. In it, Caspar reveals to Wendy the Witch that his father killed both Caspar and Caspar's mother -- stabbed them to death, as I recall -- and told police that a madman had done it, so he could collect on their life insurance policies. Wendy and Caspar proceed to attack Caspar's father, who is living it up on the insurance money. He crashes his fancy car into a tree, and then Caspar kills him pretty gruesomely. Not a very pleasant story, but it was done so over-the-top and with the same innocent, clean style of illustration as the old Harvey Comics that I'm laughing just remembering it.
One of the other features was a rip-off on the Smurfs, featuring such standbys as Weak-Bladder Smurf. "Papa Smurf has to take a bath because I smurfed on him!" he proudly declares, which remains my all-time favorite smurf line.
Then there was a spoof they did of some of the old Avengers comics around the time of the Kree-Skrull War back in the early 1970s. As I recall, the story was that the Skrulls had kidnapped a cow that the Vision had fallen in love with. Great send-up of the Avengers, with the original artwork intact:
"That's it, Captain America! Throw away your shield -- your only means of defending yourself against these far more powerful bad guys."
"Just don't think of pulling these ridiculously long and exposed cables that obviously supply our power."
"Are you going to hit them with your repulsor rays?"
"Nah, I'm just going to skate around in a silly pose."
And the closing feature was the battle of Captain Contradiction and the Evil Gainsayer: "I almost got you there." "No you didn't." "Yes I did." "No you didn't."
And so on. Ah, good old Crazy. Too bad I found out about it at the very end of its existence. I would have enjoyed it a lot more.
And the closing feature was the battle of Captain Contradiction and the Evil Gainsayer: "I almost got you there." "No you didn't." "Yes I did." "No you didn't."
And so on. Ah, good old Crazy. Too bad I found out about it at the very end of its existence. I would have enjoyed it a lot more.
Thursday, August 21, 2003
pet food to eat
My mother once made my Aunt Julie some tuna sandwiches using a tin of cat food, back when they were much younger. From what I'm told, my aunt thought the sandwiches were great until she discovered why my mother kept laughing.
Sunday, August 17, 2003
journey to compassion
I have a friend this week who came out of a closet she's lived in for the past few years.
Jane -- that's not her real name, which I won't use for obvious reasons -- is 18 years old. She's come to realize over the course of her high school career that she's a Little Bit Different from her friends. She's gay.
Unfortunately for Jane, her parents found out before she was ready to tell them. Her mother spent most of the next few days crying, the entire family went to see a psychiatrist, and everyone in the family forgot how to laugh. All told, it sounds like a fairly miserable experience.
I've never actually met Jane in person. I know her through an online humor forum created and maintained by a mutual friend, but when I learned what was happening, my reaction was the same as if she attended my church or lived down the street from me.
All day Monday and Tuesday, she was on my mind as I alternately prayed for her and her family, and tried to dig up resources that they could use, such as contact information for chapters of Parents and Friends of Lesbians And Gays in her area.
That's actually a fairly major departure from how I would have reacted a few years ago. Although my moral views on homosexuality have remained largely unchanged in the past 10-odd years, my attitude toward gays and lesbians themselves has undergone a steady migration from homophobia to tolerance.
Homophobia is a funny word to use. It's certainly not a term I would have used to apply to myself back in college. After all, as a devout Christian since a conversion experience when I was almost 18, I recognized a need to "hate the sin and love the sinner," a popular cliche in evangelical circles often used to provide a safe cover for not loving people regarded as sinners.
It's a common thing in evangelical circles to view homosexuality with hostility. You hear all sorts of comments about "the homosexual agenda," along with arguments that the growing acceptance of homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle will lead to the deterioration of the family as an institution and to the destruction of society as a whole.
The basis for all this invective is found in about six or seven places in the Bible, including one verse in Leviticus that actually prescribes the death penalty for gay sex, a penalty also prescribed for adultery.
Elsewhere, in the New Testament book of 1 Corinthians, the Apostle Paul mentions homosexuality in a fairly comprehensive list of human behavior that also includes sins like gluttony, rage, drunkenness, greediness, malicious speech and other offenses.
Mix these Scriptures with a pervading sense of fear that the bad guys are winning and society slowly is being subverted, and it's easy to see why many otherwise decent people latch onto the growing acceptance of the gay lifestyle as one of the root causes for all that's wrong with the world today.
I'm sorry to say that I bought into it. While I professed to care about all people, including gays and lesbians, the truth probably is that I came across as more concerned that people know how I felt about what they were doing than about how I felt about them -- which means, of course, that they really didn't mean that much to me at all, however much I protested otherwise.
Things started to change my junior year when a friend of mine lent me Tony Campolo's book "20 Hot Potatoes Christians are Afraid to Touch." A fairly well-respected voice in the evangelical community, at least among college students, Campolo made the radical claim that gays and lesbians have the same inherent worth as their heterosexual relatives.
What's more, he gave practical examples of people who behaved in a way in keeping with the uncompromising love Christians claim to uphold as their model: a minister who officiated at the funeral of a gay man who had died from AIDS complications and stayed afterward for two hours, comforting the companions of the deceased; and a church that gave several thousand dollars to help AIDS victims.
My senior year the AIDS quilt came to Lackawanna College. Other members of the campus Christian fellowship stayed away, concerned they might send the wrong message, that they approved of homosexuality.
I not only went and looked at all the quilts, I volunteered to help read the names of those who had died.
That might not seem like much, but it was a beginning. During the next five years as my faith deepened, I had to ask myself hard questions about what it means when Christ calls his followers to love friends, enemies and strangers alike; and about what St. James means when he writes that faith expressed only as words is no faith at all.
I also had to look into the darkness of my own soul and consider honestly whether my own sins were any more acceptable to God than somebody else's.
In November 1997, I took a position as a reporter for The Princeton Packet just after one of my co-workers there had told her parents that she was a lesbian. Heather was a hard-working, professional, no-nonsense type of reporter. She reported things as they happened, called them as she saw them, and wasn't afraid to ask public officials tough questions, or to stand up to them.
About six or seven months later, another co-worker told me that he was bisexual. Like Heather, Bill is about as non-threatening as people come, and his high-octane personality and sense of humor make him a lot of fun to work with.
Neither of them is an evil or malicious person, nor is any other homosexual I've had the good fortune to know in the years since, either professionally or privately. The whole of the "agenda" I ever heard any of them pursue was nothing more sinister than getting the same respect, opportunities and treatment as their straight colleagues and co-workers.
That doesn't sound very awful to me. To be honest, I'm really not sure why I ever thought it did.
Jane -- that's not her real name, which I won't use for obvious reasons -- is 18 years old. She's come to realize over the course of her high school career that she's a Little Bit Different from her friends. She's gay.
Unfortunately for Jane, her parents found out before she was ready to tell them. Her mother spent most of the next few days crying, the entire family went to see a psychiatrist, and everyone in the family forgot how to laugh. All told, it sounds like a fairly miserable experience.
I've never actually met Jane in person. I know her through an online humor forum created and maintained by a mutual friend, but when I learned what was happening, my reaction was the same as if she attended my church or lived down the street from me.
All day Monday and Tuesday, she was on my mind as I alternately prayed for her and her family, and tried to dig up resources that they could use, such as contact information for chapters of Parents and Friends of Lesbians And Gays in her area.
That's actually a fairly major departure from how I would have reacted a few years ago. Although my moral views on homosexuality have remained largely unchanged in the past 10-odd years, my attitude toward gays and lesbians themselves has undergone a steady migration from homophobia to tolerance.
Homophobia is a funny word to use. It's certainly not a term I would have used to apply to myself back in college. After all, as a devout Christian since a conversion experience when I was almost 18, I recognized a need to "hate the sin and love the sinner," a popular cliche in evangelical circles often used to provide a safe cover for not loving people regarded as sinners.
It's a common thing in evangelical circles to view homosexuality with hostility. You hear all sorts of comments about "the homosexual agenda," along with arguments that the growing acceptance of homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle will lead to the deterioration of the family as an institution and to the destruction of society as a whole.
The basis for all this invective is found in about six or seven places in the Bible, including one verse in Leviticus that actually prescribes the death penalty for gay sex, a penalty also prescribed for adultery.
Elsewhere, in the New Testament book of 1 Corinthians, the Apostle Paul mentions homosexuality in a fairly comprehensive list of human behavior that also includes sins like gluttony, rage, drunkenness, greediness, malicious speech and other offenses.
Mix these Scriptures with a pervading sense of fear that the bad guys are winning and society slowly is being subverted, and it's easy to see why many otherwise decent people latch onto the growing acceptance of the gay lifestyle as one of the root causes for all that's wrong with the world today.
I'm sorry to say that I bought into it. While I professed to care about all people, including gays and lesbians, the truth probably is that I came across as more concerned that people know how I felt about what they were doing than about how I felt about them -- which means, of course, that they really didn't mean that much to me at all, however much I protested otherwise.
Things started to change my junior year when a friend of mine lent me Tony Campolo's book "20 Hot Potatoes Christians are Afraid to Touch." A fairly well-respected voice in the evangelical community, at least among college students, Campolo made the radical claim that gays and lesbians have the same inherent worth as their heterosexual relatives.
What's more, he gave practical examples of people who behaved in a way in keeping with the uncompromising love Christians claim to uphold as their model: a minister who officiated at the funeral of a gay man who had died from AIDS complications and stayed afterward for two hours, comforting the companions of the deceased; and a church that gave several thousand dollars to help AIDS victims.
My senior year the AIDS quilt came to Lackawanna College. Other members of the campus Christian fellowship stayed away, concerned they might send the wrong message, that they approved of homosexuality.
I not only went and looked at all the quilts, I volunteered to help read the names of those who had died.
That might not seem like much, but it was a beginning. During the next five years as my faith deepened, I had to ask myself hard questions about what it means when Christ calls his followers to love friends, enemies and strangers alike; and about what St. James means when he writes that faith expressed only as words is no faith at all.
I also had to look into the darkness of my own soul and consider honestly whether my own sins were any more acceptable to God than somebody else's.
In November 1997, I took a position as a reporter for The Princeton Packet just after one of my co-workers there had told her parents that she was a lesbian. Heather was a hard-working, professional, no-nonsense type of reporter. She reported things as they happened, called them as she saw them, and wasn't afraid to ask public officials tough questions, or to stand up to them.
About six or seven months later, another co-worker told me that he was bisexual. Like Heather, Bill is about as non-threatening as people come, and his high-octane personality and sense of humor make him a lot of fun to work with.
Neither of them is an evil or malicious person, nor is any other homosexual I've had the good fortune to know in the years since, either professionally or privately. The whole of the "agenda" I ever heard any of them pursue was nothing more sinister than getting the same respect, opportunities and treatment as their straight colleagues and co-workers.
That doesn't sound very awful to me. To be honest, I'm really not sure why I ever thought it did.
Friday, August 15, 2003
power outage
I was at work when the power went out, and when we realized that it was a widespread thing -- that a bunch of places lost power all at once -- the question a number of us immediately asked was, "Is it terrorism?"
The answer, thankfully, is no, but on my way home, a number of radio commentators were remarking at the eerie similarity to two years ago at the number of people who were having to hoof it out of New York, and the panic that was being spotted in some corners because of the assumption we were under attack again.
It was especially bad in this area because they just arrested the arms dealer in Newark who was planning to sell about 50 surface-to-air missile launchers to terrorists here in the U.S.
I just read on ABC News that the power is coming on in most places, although there may be some residents who won't have power until some time this weekend. It's still not clear exactly what caused it; reports of a fire or lightning strike at the Niagara falls generator plant have been discounted.
All things considered, it's not that bad. There's been some looting in places, and probably some aggravated medical conditions and even a few deaths because of the blackout, but it could have been a lot worse.
Don't worry about us. We're fine. (Well, I'm wide awake at 5:50 a.m. because Rachel woke me up four hours ago, but otherwise, things are good.)
The answer, thankfully, is no, but on my way home, a number of radio commentators were remarking at the eerie similarity to two years ago at the number of people who were having to hoof it out of New York, and the panic that was being spotted in some corners because of the assumption we were under attack again.
It was especially bad in this area because they just arrested the arms dealer in Newark who was planning to sell about 50 surface-to-air missile launchers to terrorists here in the U.S.
I just read on ABC News that the power is coming on in most places, although there may be some residents who won't have power until some time this weekend. It's still not clear exactly what caused it; reports of a fire or lightning strike at the Niagara falls generator plant have been discounted.
All things considered, it's not that bad. There's been some looting in places, and probably some aggravated medical conditions and even a few deaths because of the blackout, but it could have been a lot worse.
Don't worry about us. We're fine. (Well, I'm wide awake at 5:50 a.m. because Rachel woke me up four hours ago, but otherwise, things are good.)
tower of babel
Back when I was teaching English, I was looking for a way to integrate my lessons better with the gospel, to find a more holistic approach than the cheap tack-ons that most Christian schools use in the curricula.
It occurred to me at one point that language is what makes us fundamentally stamped in God's image. John describes Christ as Logos, the divine Word with the power of creation and the authority to give reality form.
In other words, as with God, language isn't something we do, it's what we are. Because I'm primarily an English speaker, I have any number of preconceptions about love, God, faith, sin, the weather and time stamped into my mind. It's a tremendous exercise for me to break away from the definitions we have of those concepts in English and imagine them as they are presented in a non-English language.
We could take the word "god" for example. There's no real analog to that word in Hindi, so we substitute "Brahma" because that's the closest thing, but it's still a poor choice. In Hindi, "Brahma" is the sum of all things; God as an individual entity does not exist, but is found in and through all the world. Similarly, our concept of "sin" fails to find an adequate corresponding term in Hindi, where their term for "sin" refers to breaking the caste order.
Because I'm an English speaker, I also have a difficult time understanding why Spanish has estar and ser. Both infinitives translate as "to be," although with different applications. A Spanish speaker has no problem getting the difference, and can't understand why we use "to be" as a catch-all for both ser and estar.
It strikes me that what God was doing at the Tower of Babel essentially was breaking humanity up into different ethno-linguistic groups, each with a different way of relating to him so that we could learn from another to appreciate and worship him in new and different ways. It also had the effect of breaking up the spread of our sin, since ideas now must be translated from one language to the next and we cannot all rebel together as in the days of Nimrod.
Of course, it also makes it more difficult for us to understand one another, since the curse wasn't a one-time event, but something new that was levied on the human condition so that our languages always are changing and mutating, and even within our own language we lose some degree of discourse with the past as words like gandermooning disappear and other words, like let, take on completely different, if not opposite, meanings from what they once had.
It occurred to me at one point that language is what makes us fundamentally stamped in God's image. John describes Christ as Logos, the divine Word with the power of creation and the authority to give reality form.
In other words, as with God, language isn't something we do, it's what we are. Because I'm primarily an English speaker, I have any number of preconceptions about love, God, faith, sin, the weather and time stamped into my mind. It's a tremendous exercise for me to break away from the definitions we have of those concepts in English and imagine them as they are presented in a non-English language.
We could take the word "god" for example. There's no real analog to that word in Hindi, so we substitute "Brahma" because that's the closest thing, but it's still a poor choice. In Hindi, "Brahma" is the sum of all things; God as an individual entity does not exist, but is found in and through all the world. Similarly, our concept of "sin" fails to find an adequate corresponding term in Hindi, where their term for "sin" refers to breaking the caste order.
Because I'm an English speaker, I also have a difficult time understanding why Spanish has estar and ser. Both infinitives translate as "to be," although with different applications. A Spanish speaker has no problem getting the difference, and can't understand why we use "to be" as a catch-all for both ser and estar.
It strikes me that what God was doing at the Tower of Babel essentially was breaking humanity up into different ethno-linguistic groups, each with a different way of relating to him so that we could learn from another to appreciate and worship him in new and different ways. It also had the effect of breaking up the spread of our sin, since ideas now must be translated from one language to the next and we cannot all rebel together as in the days of Nimrod.
Of course, it also makes it more difficult for us to understand one another, since the curse wasn't a one-time event, but something new that was levied on the human condition so that our languages always are changing and mutating, and even within our own language we lose some degree of discourse with the past as words like gandermooning disappear and other words, like let, take on completely different, if not opposite, meanings from what they once had.
the power of images
Interesting paper.
I agree with the points he's made -- and I hope some people in Hollywood read it. One of the chiefest strengths of the paper is on how the archetype is diminished once we have an image of it.
That is, I think, one of the chief failings of cinema in our age. It's not enough to let us imagine the horrible scene, we have to see it in gory detail, whether it be murder victims in movies like "Se7en," rape victims in "The General's Daughter" or what have you. The monster that we cannot see is much more terrifying than the one that we do; the crime scene that goes unshown can be far more unsettling than the one shown in full-color. Good directors understand this; more studios need to as well.
The balrog in Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" that Mallinson mentions is an excellent illustration of that. The echo of its approaching footsteps sets everybody on edge, but when it appears, it's like watching a video game.
Theologian Jacques Ellul wrote a fascinating book called "The Humiliation of the Word" -- I imagine its actual title is more like "L'Humiliation de le Parole," but I bought it in translation -- that examines the role of images in Scripture.
His essential thesis is that God proscribes images much for the same reason describes in the essay: It reduces the divine to the level of the profane, and strips it of its power. An old man with a long beard sitting on a chair in the clouds is nowhere near as awe-inspiring or unsettling as an encounter with the numinous; what's more, it decreases our dependence upon God to be with us in the now.
God's spoken word is what shaped the mountains and can shatter the foundations of the earth. Written down, while still True in the best sense of the word, it can become a snare to us because we get locked into the surface of it without understanding the full import of what it says. (Such as those Christians who refuse to have Christmas trees because they believe Jeremiah spoke against them.)
Take that degradation one step further -- print the verse under the picture of a Christmas tree -- and the meaning becomes even more fixed in the minds of those who see it, to the extent that it becomes increasingly difficult to read the verse or hear it and understand that Jeremiah was referring to idolatry, without at least thinking of Christmas trees.
I agree with the points he's made -- and I hope some people in Hollywood read it. One of the chiefest strengths of the paper is on how the archetype is diminished once we have an image of it.
That is, I think, one of the chief failings of cinema in our age. It's not enough to let us imagine the horrible scene, we have to see it in gory detail, whether it be murder victims in movies like "Se7en," rape victims in "The General's Daughter" or what have you. The monster that we cannot see is much more terrifying than the one that we do; the crime scene that goes unshown can be far more unsettling than the one shown in full-color. Good directors understand this; more studios need to as well.
The balrog in Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" that Mallinson mentions is an excellent illustration of that. The echo of its approaching footsteps sets everybody on edge, but when it appears, it's like watching a video game.
Theologian Jacques Ellul wrote a fascinating book called "The Humiliation of the Word" -- I imagine its actual title is more like "L'Humiliation de le Parole," but I bought it in translation -- that examines the role of images in Scripture.
His essential thesis is that God proscribes images much for the same reason describes in the essay: It reduces the divine to the level of the profane, and strips it of its power. An old man with a long beard sitting on a chair in the clouds is nowhere near as awe-inspiring or unsettling as an encounter with the numinous; what's more, it decreases our dependence upon God to be with us in the now.
God's spoken word is what shaped the mountains and can shatter the foundations of the earth. Written down, while still True in the best sense of the word, it can become a snare to us because we get locked into the surface of it without understanding the full import of what it says. (Such as those Christians who refuse to have Christmas trees because they believe Jeremiah spoke against them.)
Take that degradation one step further -- print the verse under the picture of a Christmas tree -- and the meaning becomes even more fixed in the minds of those who see it, to the extent that it becomes increasingly difficult to read the verse or hear it and understand that Jeremiah was referring to idolatry, without at least thinking of Christmas trees.
Thursday, August 14, 2003
pidgin bible
Wycliffe has finally translated the Bible into Hawaiian Pidgin!
I guess I'd have to say I'm in favor of it, but part of me has a negative reaction to it, as though the pidgin should be considered poor English rather than a language in its own right.
If the pidgin is regarded as its own language -- a shaky determination with pidgins, which usually don't have their own written literature, a codified lexicon, or even status as the sole or primary language to a group of people -- then it makes sense to treat pidgin speakers as a separate people group.
Otherwise, aren't we just elevating poor grammar and language skills to the level of the standard forms? Where then do we draw a line for what makes good or bad English?
The point one of the translators makes about the koine Greek scriptures is a good one. The gospel wasn't entrusted first to the well-educated and established members of Roman society, but to the cast-offs who spoke a pretty mangled form of Greek.
The difference I suppose is that koine was a universal second language throughout the ancient world, much like English is today, and pidgin languages usually are small subsets of a larger language family that pidgin speakers already are familiar with and deal with on a regular basis.
In Haiti, only the wealthy 10 percent speak French, and the 90 percent who speak only Kreyol aren't going to understand French properly if it bites them in the tucish, as it sometimes does. Kreyol is the language that defines their culture and their world.
Is that the case for the pidgin English they're talking about in Hawaii? Beats me, but I suppose it can't hurt to have the Bible in any language -- even a pidgin language -- if it opens doors to more people finding Christ. It's not likely to do that, though, if the language hasn't got a more or less codified and universally accepted lexicon, though.
"God wen get so plenny love an aloha fo da peopo inside da world, dat he wen send me, his one an ony Boy, so dat everybody dat trus me no get cut off from God, but get da kine life dat stay to da max foeva." (John Tell Bout Jesus 3:16)
I guess I'd have to say I'm in favor of it, but part of me has a negative reaction to it, as though the pidgin should be considered poor English rather than a language in its own right.
If the pidgin is regarded as its own language -- a shaky determination with pidgins, which usually don't have their own written literature, a codified lexicon, or even status as the sole or primary language to a group of people -- then it makes sense to treat pidgin speakers as a separate people group.
Otherwise, aren't we just elevating poor grammar and language skills to the level of the standard forms? Where then do we draw a line for what makes good or bad English?
The point one of the translators makes about the koine Greek scriptures is a good one. The gospel wasn't entrusted first to the well-educated and established members of Roman society, but to the cast-offs who spoke a pretty mangled form of Greek.
The difference I suppose is that koine was a universal second language throughout the ancient world, much like English is today, and pidgin languages usually are small subsets of a larger language family that pidgin speakers already are familiar with and deal with on a regular basis.
In Haiti, only the wealthy 10 percent speak French, and the 90 percent who speak only Kreyol aren't going to understand French properly if it bites them in the tucish, as it sometimes does. Kreyol is the language that defines their culture and their world.
Is that the case for the pidgin English they're talking about in Hawaii? Beats me, but I suppose it can't hurt to have the Bible in any language -- even a pidgin language -- if it opens doors to more people finding Christ. It's not likely to do that, though, if the language hasn't got a more or less codified and universally accepted lexicon, though.
kiddie songs
So Evangeline, Rachel and I are in the car headed out to get some dog food for the dog. I convince Evangeline it would be nice to sing a song during the trip. After fishing around for a few moments, she decided to sing "Row Row Row Your Boat":
And of course, the very first song she ever sang went like this:
Row, row, row your boatAround this time last year, "Ring around the Rosie" was:
Gently down the street.
Mary, Mary, Mary, Mary,
Once upon a dream.
Ring around rosies!
Pockies, posies!
Washes, washes,
All fall down!
Cows in meadows,
Buttercups!
Thunder! Wipies!
All stand up!
And of course, the very first song she ever sang went like this:
Silent night, hose.Kids are great.
All's calm. All's bright.
Yine verse mommy
Sleep.
Silent night, hose.
Sheps quake at sight.
Tuesday, August 12, 2003
clover
The best way I understand to eliminate clover is through an early-spring application of corn gluten. A natural and biodegradable byproduct of corn processing, corn gluten acts as a new-growth inhibitor that stops seeds from germinating. Over a period of about a month, it biodegrades into nitrates that will fertilize your lawn. It has absolutely no deleterious effects on the lawn, the worms or the other beneficials that live in the lawn, nor upon plants with established root systems. You apply it in early spring, when your first flowers start to bloom, about six weeks before last frost.
Six weeks after you apply the corn gluten, overseed your lawn. The new grass plants will gobble up the space left by the weeds and will make it difficult for new weeds to get established later in the year. In the space of a few growing seasons, the yard should be virtually completely free of not only clover but other weeds as well.
I'm generally content to let my clover be since it aids the biodiversity of the lawn and adds nitrates to the soil.
Six weeks after you apply the corn gluten, overseed your lawn. The new grass plants will gobble up the space left by the weeds and will make it difficult for new weeds to get established later in the year. In the space of a few growing seasons, the yard should be virtually completely free of not only clover but other weeds as well.
I'm generally content to let my clover be since it aids the biodiversity of the lawn and adds nitrates to the soil.
Sunday, August 10, 2003
product placement
Thinking about the proliferation of product placement in movies and such. When did it become so standard and prolific?
To be honest, it's only a problem when it gets really jarring, like when Legolas kept going on about how he find Irish Spring leaves him cleaner than three other leading brands, or when Sam told Frodo what he always does for hemorhoidal itch.
At times, it can get downright clever. The ten minutes of "Repo Man" that I actually stayed awake for and remember were amusing because every single product they showed was generic -- and I mean generic, with the black and white label that said simply beer, cola, or potted meat product.
About 30 years ago, it was the custom at Marvel Comics to run a one-page ad featuring one of their superheroes who would be hard-pressed to defeat the villain until he pulled out the Hostess Twinkies. The criminals would be unable to resist the spongecake and cream filling, and actually wouldn't mind being taken away by the police. Once, Captain Mar-vell even used Twinkies to prevent a Kree invasion of the Earth.
During the infamous Assistant Editor's Month of the mid-1980s, an issue of Marvel Team-Up featured Galactus as the villain who was threatening to devour the Earth. He was stopped by Aunt May, who gave him a bunch of Grosstest Twinkles. It had to be one of the funniest Marvel Team-Ups I've ever read, complete with lines like, "These Twinkles possess surprising amounts of energy!"
To be honest, it's only a problem when it gets really jarring, like when Legolas kept going on about how he find Irish Spring leaves him cleaner than three other leading brands, or when Sam told Frodo what he always does for hemorhoidal itch.
At times, it can get downright clever. The ten minutes of "Repo Man" that I actually stayed awake for and remember were amusing because every single product they showed was generic -- and I mean generic, with the black and white label that said simply beer, cola, or potted meat product.
About 30 years ago, it was the custom at Marvel Comics to run a one-page ad featuring one of their superheroes who would be hard-pressed to defeat the villain until he pulled out the Hostess Twinkies. The criminals would be unable to resist the spongecake and cream filling, and actually wouldn't mind being taken away by the police. Once, Captain Mar-vell even used Twinkies to prevent a Kree invasion of the Earth.
During the infamous Assistant Editor's Month of the mid-1980s, an issue of Marvel Team-Up featured Galactus as the villain who was threatening to devour the Earth. He was stopped by Aunt May, who gave him a bunch of Grosstest Twinkles. It had to be one of the funniest Marvel Team-Ups I've ever read, complete with lines like, "These Twinkles possess surprising amounts of energy!"
Saturday, August 09, 2003
waltzing matilda
So my daughter has this song on one of her children's CDs, and for some reason it makes me think of Australia:
Okay, after checking the dictionary thoroughly, I think I'm getting the hang of it:
swagman: an itinerant worker, like an "okie" here in the States
tuckerbag: where he keeps his food
jumbuck: a sheep
billabong: a (mostly) dried-up river
billy: tea kettle
So if I'm reading this aright, it's a folk song about an itinerant worker who was killed while "resisting arrest" for stealing a sheep. In essence, a form of protest over the gentility -- the "squatter" who claims to own public land -- and police brutality. (Three troopers to arrest one man?)
If I understand correctly, the squatter usually was an absent landlord, someone who might never have seen the land or sheep in question. While that doesn't undercut the legality of the ownership, it does make the contempt for the landowners more understandable, much like the laborers in California resented the corporate farm owners they had to deal with, like in "The Grapes of Wrath."
It gets even more interesting. (See, I obsess over stuff I find really interesting.) According to the author of www.waltzingmatilda.com, I'm not too far off in my guesswork.
He links the song to an eight-day period in 1894, when the landowners were trying to reduce by 12½ percent the amount of money sheep-shearers were paid. The sheep-shearers unionized, a couple of them were shot as insurrectionists, they burned down a few things, and things got pretty hairy. The writer, who claims to have done about 10 years of research into this, even identifies the swagman he thinks the song is about -- and yes, the incident the song describes apparently is even historical.
The web site author believes the events of that eight-day strike broke the back of a nascent class system in Australia and led to a society where people could move about based on ability rather than social class, which is why the song is such a fundamentally Australian folk song.
And if you think THIS is unpleasant, you should hear about "Four and Twenty Blackbirds" and "Ring Around the Rosie," and what they're about.
Once a jolly swagman camped by a billabong
Under the shade of a Coolabah tree,
And he sang as he watched and waited till his billy boiled,
"Who'll come a'waltzing Matilda with me?"
Waltzing Matilda, Waltzing Matilda!
Who'll come a'waltzing Matilda with me?
And he sang as he watched and waited till his billy boiled,
"Who'll come waltzing Matilda with me?"
Down came a jumbuck to drink at that billabong,
Up jumped the swag man and grabbed him with glee.
And he sang as he watched and waitied til his billy boiled,
"You'll come a'waltzing Matilda with me."
Waltzing Matilda, Waltzing Matilda!
You'll come a'waltzing Matilda with me.
And he sang as he watched and waited till his billy boiled,
"You'll come a'waltzing Matilda with me."
Up rode the squatter mounted on his thoroughbred,
Down came troopers! one, two, three!
"Now where's that jolly jumbuck you've got in your tucker bag?
You'll come a'waltzing Matilda with me."
Waltzing Matilda, Waltzing Matilda!
You'll come a'waltzing Matilda with me.
"Now where's that jolly jumbuck you've got in your tucker bag?
You'll come a waltzing Matilda with me."
Up jumped the swagman and sprang into the billabong.
"You'll never catch me alive," said he.
And his ghost may be heard as you pass by the billabong,
"You'll come a'waltzing Matilda with me."
Waltzing Matilda, Waltzing Matilda!
You'll come a'waltzing Matilda with me.
And his ghost may be heard as you pass by the billabong,
"You'll come a'waltzing Matilda with me."
Okay, after checking the dictionary thoroughly, I think I'm getting the hang of it:
swagman: an itinerant worker, like an "okie" here in the States
tuckerbag: where he keeps his food
jumbuck: a sheep
billabong: a (mostly) dried-up river
billy: tea kettle
So if I'm reading this aright, it's a folk song about an itinerant worker who was killed while "resisting arrest" for stealing a sheep. In essence, a form of protest over the gentility -- the "squatter" who claims to own public land -- and police brutality. (Three troopers to arrest one man?)
If I understand correctly, the squatter usually was an absent landlord, someone who might never have seen the land or sheep in question. While that doesn't undercut the legality of the ownership, it does make the contempt for the landowners more understandable, much like the laborers in California resented the corporate farm owners they had to deal with, like in "The Grapes of Wrath."
It gets even more interesting. (See, I obsess over stuff I find really interesting.) According to the author of www.waltzingmatilda.com, I'm not too far off in my guesswork.
He links the song to an eight-day period in 1894, when the landowners were trying to reduce by 12½ percent the amount of money sheep-shearers were paid. The sheep-shearers unionized, a couple of them were shot as insurrectionists, they burned down a few things, and things got pretty hairy. The writer, who claims to have done about 10 years of research into this, even identifies the swagman he thinks the song is about -- and yes, the incident the song describes apparently is even historical.
The web site author believes the events of that eight-day strike broke the back of a nascent class system in Australia and led to a society where people could move about based on ability rather than social class, which is why the song is such a fundamentally Australian folk song.
And if you think THIS is unpleasant, you should hear about "Four and Twenty Blackbirds" and "Ring Around the Rosie," and what they're about.
Friday, August 08, 2003
lotr easter eggs
If you have the extended version DVD of "Fellowship of the Ring":
1) On the first DVD, scroll all the way to the bottom of the scenes menu. When you are at the last scene, "The Council of Elrond," press the down arrow key again. This will take you next to the words "New scene." If you press play, Peter Jackson will introduce an MTV spoof called "Lord of the Piercing" that depicts an alternate rendering of the Council of Elrond. It's amusing, but it's also off-color.
2) On the second DVD, go to the last screen in the scenes menu. Switch to the right hand column, where it gives you choices of scene clusters. Scroll down to the bottom of the list, then press the Down Button. An image of two towers will appear; press play, and you will get a preview of "The Two Towers." Of course, you've probably scene the movie already, but the Easter egg is still there.
1) On the first DVD, scroll all the way to the bottom of the scenes menu. When you are at the last scene, "The Council of Elrond," press the down arrow key again. This will take you next to the words "New scene." If you press play, Peter Jackson will introduce an MTV spoof called "Lord of the Piercing" that depicts an alternate rendering of the Council of Elrond. It's amusing, but it's also off-color.
2) On the second DVD, go to the last screen in the scenes menu. Switch to the right hand column, where it gives you choices of scene clusters. Scroll down to the bottom of the list, then press the Down Button. An image of two towers will appear; press play, and you will get a preview of "The Two Towers." Of course, you've probably scene the movie already, but the Easter egg is still there.
Thursday, August 07, 2003
School official allegedly assaulted teen
A Board of Education member
may be headed to court to defend
himself against an accusation that he
assaulted a teenage boy from Garwood.
Michael Timoni, 45, of Wheatsheaf Road, is a six-year veteran of the school board now beginning his third consecutive term. In a July 7 complaint filed in Garwood Municipal Court, Linda Russo of Anchor Place, Garwood, alleges that Timoni assaulted her son early last month.
"The allegations as they are stated on that ticket are denied, and have been responded to," Timoni said Tuesday afternoon.
The complaint was filed in Garwood but has been transferred to Roselle because of a conflict. Russo said the complaints may be headed to mediation instead.
Details on the alleged incident are scarce. A report by the Garwood Police Department indicates that authorities there received a 9-1-1 call at 11:57 a.m. July 2 from a resident who was reporting a group of people fighting in the street at Second Avenue and Winslow Place.
Garwood police arrived at the scene within two minutes, where they found six people fighting. In addition to Timoni, police listed as suspects Michael O'Donohue, 20, of Shackamaxon Drive, Westfield; Aldo Ramondelli, 72, of Walnut Avenue, Cranford; and Stephen Timoni, 49, of Autumn Drive, Scotch Plains.
The Garwood police report identifies the victim as a i6-year-oid from Anchor Place, Garwood.
A second 16-year-old, from Shackamaxon Drive, Westfield, also is listed as involved in the incident but the police report as released does not identify the Westfield teen either as a suspect or as a victim.
Russo also filed municipal complaints against Ramondelli and a Ryan O'Donohue of 865 Shackamaxon Drive, Westfield, alleging simple assault.
"I am not going to talk about it, period," Russo said. "My son is away. He is a minor, and it will be up to him if he would like to say something."
A call to Russo's attorney, Richard Butler of Union, was not returned.
The Garwood report says the fight was about a missing adult child from Clark, whom Timoni identified as his daughter Lauren.
Like Russo, Timoni declined to discuss the allegations, referring to the situation as "a fairly serious family problem" and as the "middle of a nightmare."
"When it started, my daughter was a minor.... This has been an ongoing problem for two families," he said. "I'm doing my best through my family attorney to settle this."
It was not known what effect the allegations could have on Timoni's participation in the Board of Education. Superintendent of Schools Paul Ortenzio, who works with Timoni in his role as a member of the school board's building and grounds committee, could not be reached for comment Tuesday.
Although Timoni generally is one of the quieter members on the school board and has avoided involving himself in some of the more explosive issues that have gained the board's attention, such as the debate over the discontinued gymnastics team, he has provided an active behind-the-scenes role in some of the board's other activities.
In previous discussions, Timoni has called his professional experience as a real estate appraiser and broker an asset to the board, particularly during its ultimately successful appeal of a public referendum that defeated a major facilities repair project.
At the moment, though, Timoni hopes to bring the problem to an ending.
"The Timoni family is trying to make a comfortable resolution," he said.
Michael Timoni, 45, of Wheatsheaf Road, is a six-year veteran of the school board now beginning his third consecutive term. In a July 7 complaint filed in Garwood Municipal Court, Linda Russo of Anchor Place, Garwood, alleges that Timoni assaulted her son early last month.
"The allegations as they are stated on that ticket are denied, and have been responded to," Timoni said Tuesday afternoon.
The complaint was filed in Garwood but has been transferred to Roselle because of a conflict. Russo said the complaints may be headed to mediation instead.
Details on the alleged incident are scarce. A report by the Garwood Police Department indicates that authorities there received a 9-1-1 call at 11:57 a.m. July 2 from a resident who was reporting a group of people fighting in the street at Second Avenue and Winslow Place.
Garwood police arrived at the scene within two minutes, where they found six people fighting. In addition to Timoni, police listed as suspects Michael O'Donohue, 20, of Shackamaxon Drive, Westfield; Aldo Ramondelli, 72, of Walnut Avenue, Cranford; and Stephen Timoni, 49, of Autumn Drive, Scotch Plains.
The Garwood police report identifies the victim as a i6-year-oid from Anchor Place, Garwood.
A second 16-year-old, from Shackamaxon Drive, Westfield, also is listed as involved in the incident but the police report as released does not identify the Westfield teen either as a suspect or as a victim.
Russo also filed municipal complaints against Ramondelli and a Ryan O'Donohue of 865 Shackamaxon Drive, Westfield, alleging simple assault.
"I am not going to talk about it, period," Russo said. "My son is away. He is a minor, and it will be up to him if he would like to say something."
A call to Russo's attorney, Richard Butler of Union, was not returned.
The Garwood report says the fight was about a missing adult child from Clark, whom Timoni identified as his daughter Lauren.
Like Russo, Timoni declined to discuss the allegations, referring to the situation as "a fairly serious family problem" and as the "middle of a nightmare."
"When it started, my daughter was a minor.... This has been an ongoing problem for two families," he said. "I'm doing my best through my family attorney to settle this."
It was not known what effect the allegations could have on Timoni's participation in the Board of Education. Superintendent of Schools Paul Ortenzio, who works with Timoni in his role as a member of the school board's building and grounds committee, could not be reached for comment Tuesday.
Although Timoni generally is one of the quieter members on the school board and has avoided involving himself in some of the more explosive issues that have gained the board's attention, such as the debate over the discontinued gymnastics team, he has provided an active behind-the-scenes role in some of the board's other activities.
In previous discussions, Timoni has called his professional experience as a real estate appraiser and broker an asset to the board, particularly during its ultimately successful appeal of a public referendum that defeated a major facilities repair project.
At the moment, though, Timoni hopes to bring the problem to an ending.
"The Timoni family is trying to make a comfortable resolution," he said.
Monday, August 04, 2003
why i do what i do
Every now and then, people ask me how much longer I'm going to be with the newspaper.
I don't think they're asking from a wait-til-the-carcass-drops frame of mind, though perhaps I'm kidding myself in that regard. Usually the question comes with a follow-up about where my next destination will be, with an unstated assumption that I'd like to work for a bigger publication like The Star-Ledger.
No, thanks. Been there, done that, hated every last minute of it. Before I started at WCN Newspapers, I worked for eight painful months at The Times. What was missing? The chance to make a difference.
Believe it or not, that sort of wide-eyed idealism is exactly what propelled me into community journalism back in 1996, and it's what has kept me in the business through years of being called a Democratic toady and a Republican stooge, through being demonized as a muck-raker and a trouble-maker, and through reams of vitriol poured out by people who have disagreed with editorial stands my newspapers have taken. (One of my most treasured journalistic possessions is a 1,500-word tirade to the editor from a former mayor after we endorsed his opponent and he lost re-election by a landslide.)
Recently in Quakertown, I was given a reminder of the way community journalists can affect the communities we cover if we stay faithful to our mission of reporting the news in a thorough, unbiased and professional manner.
I'm referring to a new computers-on-a-cart program that's coming to Frank K. Hehnly School, thanks to my coverage of the school district.
On Oct. 28, the Quakertown Board of Education was asked to decide whether to lease 24 laptop computers for Hehnly School at a cost of $6,912 a year for five years.
Only five of the 10 board members voted in favor of the program. Four voted against it, and one -- Garwood representative James Mattheson -- abstained, since Garwood sends students only to Arthur L. Johnson High School, and not to the district's elementary schools.
It was past midnight and I was back at the newspaper offices writing my story about the decision when it hit me. A majority of the Clark representatives had voted for the proposal. Even though his abstention was meant to keep him from influencing board decisions, Mattheson's mere presence on the board had raised the ante, effectively altering the outcome of the vote.
By this time it was much too late to call anyone, and I knew the explanation I would get -- five out of 10 is not a majority -- so I did what any responsible journalist would do: I filed my story, made a note to do a follow-up and went home to get some sleep.
On Thursday I reached out to Mark Maple of the Iowa School Boards Association.
"There's nothing in the statute or code, but there have been commissioner's decisions that typically say the representative would be a nonvote," Maple told me. "It's not an abstention; it's essentially a shifting quorum."
Maple referred me to an Aug. 5, 1997, decision by then-Commissioner of Education Leo Klagholz about school districts with a relationship like the one shared by Garwood and Quakertown.
The decision is small -- barely five pages -- but it was an earthquake where the board's vote was concerned. Klagholz essentially wrote that if the issue doesn't affect the sending district, then their representatives don't vote.
Exclude Mattheson, and the vote is 5-4. Motion passes.
I called Paul Ortenzio, the Quakertown superintendent of schools, to tell him about my discovery. Since he had been given different legal advice from a qualified attorney, he was skeptical.
"The way I understand it, it has to be a majority of the whole board -- and the whole board is 10," he said.
Karen Amalfe, a school board member who had been lobbying for the laptops since the start of the summer, also was surprised by what I had to say, but she welcomed the news.
"That seems to be contradicting what the attorney told me," she said. Then she added: "If I could get that overturned, that would be wonderful."
That's pretty much what happened. Michael Gross, the board attorney, had been unaware of Klagholz's decision, but he agreed with my interpretation and said he had let the administration know that he was amending his legal advice about counting votes. The official record is going to reflect that the board voted to buy the computers.
The irony to all this is that I'm not personally convinced about the need for a laptop computer program myself. A former teacher, I regard parental involvement and teacher commitment to engaging the students as far more essential than the bells and whistles that make us so enamored with technology.
That's not important, though; what does matter is that the Quakertown Board of Education voted a certain way, and the way that vote was interpreted didn't square with how it was supposed to be counted. I had a question, I knew where to look for an answer, I found it, and I reported what I found.
In another month or so, a few hundred elementary school students are going to have access to computers they wouldn't have had otherwise, due in some small part to me.
That's what it's about. That's why I've stayed in community newspapers while co-workers of mine have landed jobs covering professional sports teams for the Associated Press, reporting for The Los Angeles Times, and chronicling the daily shenanigans at the New Jersey State House for one news bureau or another.
A colleague at The Princeton Packet once told me she hopes to ride on Air Force One some day as a member of the White House Press Corps. Jennifer's good at what she does; I won't be at all surprised if she someday works for The New York Times or the Washington Post doing just that.
As for me, although I grumble sometimes about the hours I work and about the difficulty of feeding my family on what I earn, I couldn't be happier with my choice of careers. I make a real and identifiable difference for the people whose towns I cover. What more can you ask for?
I'm a community journalist. That's what I do.
I don't think they're asking from a wait-til-the-carcass-drops frame of mind, though perhaps I'm kidding myself in that regard. Usually the question comes with a follow-up about where my next destination will be, with an unstated assumption that I'd like to work for a bigger publication like The Star-Ledger.
No, thanks. Been there, done that, hated every last minute of it. Before I started at WCN Newspapers, I worked for eight painful months at The Times. What was missing? The chance to make a difference.
Believe it or not, that sort of wide-eyed idealism is exactly what propelled me into community journalism back in 1996, and it's what has kept me in the business through years of being called a Democratic toady and a Republican stooge, through being demonized as a muck-raker and a trouble-maker, and through reams of vitriol poured out by people who have disagreed with editorial stands my newspapers have taken. (One of my most treasured journalistic possessions is a 1,500-word tirade to the editor from a former mayor after we endorsed his opponent and he lost re-election by a landslide.)
Recently in Quakertown, I was given a reminder of the way community journalists can affect the communities we cover if we stay faithful to our mission of reporting the news in a thorough, unbiased and professional manner.
I'm referring to a new computers-on-a-cart program that's coming to Frank K. Hehnly School, thanks to my coverage of the school district.
On Oct. 28, the Quakertown Board of Education was asked to decide whether to lease 24 laptop computers for Hehnly School at a cost of $6,912 a year for five years.
Only five of the 10 board members voted in favor of the program. Four voted against it, and one -- Garwood representative James Mattheson -- abstained, since Garwood sends students only to Arthur L. Johnson High School, and not to the district's elementary schools.
It was past midnight and I was back at the newspaper offices writing my story about the decision when it hit me. A majority of the Clark representatives had voted for the proposal. Even though his abstention was meant to keep him from influencing board decisions, Mattheson's mere presence on the board had raised the ante, effectively altering the outcome of the vote.
By this time it was much too late to call anyone, and I knew the explanation I would get -- five out of 10 is not a majority -- so I did what any responsible journalist would do: I filed my story, made a note to do a follow-up and went home to get some sleep.
On Thursday I reached out to Mark Maple of the Iowa School Boards Association.
"There's nothing in the statute or code, but there have been commissioner's decisions that typically say the representative would be a nonvote," Maple told me. "It's not an abstention; it's essentially a shifting quorum."
Maple referred me to an Aug. 5, 1997, decision by then-Commissioner of Education Leo Klagholz about school districts with a relationship like the one shared by Garwood and Quakertown.
The decision is small -- barely five pages -- but it was an earthquake where the board's vote was concerned. Klagholz essentially wrote that if the issue doesn't affect the sending district, then their representatives don't vote.
Exclude Mattheson, and the vote is 5-4. Motion passes.
I called Paul Ortenzio, the Quakertown superintendent of schools, to tell him about my discovery. Since he had been given different legal advice from a qualified attorney, he was skeptical.
"The way I understand it, it has to be a majority of the whole board -- and the whole board is 10," he said.
Karen Amalfe, a school board member who had been lobbying for the laptops since the start of the summer, also was surprised by what I had to say, but she welcomed the news.
"That seems to be contradicting what the attorney told me," she said. Then she added: "If I could get that overturned, that would be wonderful."
That's pretty much what happened. Michael Gross, the board attorney, had been unaware of Klagholz's decision, but he agreed with my interpretation and said he had let the administration know that he was amending his legal advice about counting votes. The official record is going to reflect that the board voted to buy the computers.
The irony to all this is that I'm not personally convinced about the need for a laptop computer program myself. A former teacher, I regard parental involvement and teacher commitment to engaging the students as far more essential than the bells and whistles that make us so enamored with technology.
That's not important, though; what does matter is that the Quakertown Board of Education voted a certain way, and the way that vote was interpreted didn't square with how it was supposed to be counted. I had a question, I knew where to look for an answer, I found it, and I reported what I found.
In another month or so, a few hundred elementary school students are going to have access to computers they wouldn't have had otherwise, due in some small part to me.
That's what it's about. That's why I've stayed in community newspapers while co-workers of mine have landed jobs covering professional sports teams for the Associated Press, reporting for The Los Angeles Times, and chronicling the daily shenanigans at the New Jersey State House for one news bureau or another.
A colleague at The Princeton Packet once told me she hopes to ride on Air Force One some day as a member of the White House Press Corps. Jennifer's good at what she does; I won't be at all surprised if she someday works for The New York Times or the Washington Post doing just that.
As for me, although I grumble sometimes about the hours I work and about the difficulty of feeding my family on what I earn, I couldn't be happier with my choice of careers. I make a real and identifiable difference for the people whose towns I cover. What more can you ask for?
I'm a community journalist. That's what I do.
Sunday, August 03, 2003
foster son update
We haven't seen Isaac in several months. His father, Craig, had been dropping him off here for weekendlong visits earlier this year for several weekends in a row. We put the kabosh on that because we felt we weren't helping Craig by enabling him to avoid his responsibilities as a father; we felt we weren't helping Isaac by letting him always be pulled back into a different family with radically different expectations for behavior; and we didn't feel it was helping Evangeline either since she was losing him again and again each week.
Actually, we didn't exactly "put the kabosh on it," but the blow-by-blow version takes too long to get into. We haven't seen him since early this spring or maybe sometime in February.
This morning, Evangeline looked up at Natasha and said, "Mommy, Isaac is my best friend, and I miss him very much."
This afternoon, she said, "Isaac, we need to send Rachel away so I can have my Lumpy back."
Sometimes, I think I've just had enough. Today is only the second time in my life I've wanted to get drunk and escape for a while.
Actually, we didn't exactly "put the kabosh on it," but the blow-by-blow version takes too long to get into. We haven't seen him since early this spring or maybe sometime in February.
This morning, Evangeline looked up at Natasha and said, "Mommy, Isaac is my best friend, and I miss him very much."
This afternoon, she said, "Isaac, we need to send Rachel away so I can have my Lumpy back."
Sometimes, I think I've just had enough. Today is only the second time in my life I've wanted to get drunk and escape for a while.
harry potter spoilers spoiler
The Daily News is being sued for a preview on the fifth Harry Potter book, because the article was written before the book was released, complete with an image of two pages from the book.
Puh-lease! This is a nuisance suit, nothing more. The store put the book out early, a reporter bought the book legitimately, and the newspaper ran a legitimate article. Nothing wrong there.
Let's hope the courts have the sense to toss this suit out.
Puh-lease! This is a nuisance suit, nothing more. The store put the book out early, a reporter bought the book legitimately, and the newspaper ran a legitimate article. Nothing wrong there.
Let's hope the courts have the sense to toss this suit out.
Friday, August 01, 2003
church shopping
I'm not into megachurches, which I find too big and impersonal for my tastes.
Natasha and I -- sort of -- checked it out Princeton Alliance Church, a big one in Plainsboro, last summer. They had an outreach event that we attended, but it didn't leave me wanting more. Princeton Alliance Church is huge. Way huge. It has enough people to require U.N. intervention and peacekeeping troops if they ever have a church split.
That means a lot of good things, of course: They have a large church complex, plenty of resources, and I'm sure they have an excellent, professionally run children's ministry. Most megachurches do.
But it's too easy for me to get woefully disconnected and feel lost in a group that big, which is why I enjoyed Community Gospel Church so much. It was big enough to have some decent programs and resources, but small enough that it remained cozy.
We spent the past several months attending Cross Pointe Church in West Windsor (now meeting at the Boy Scouts offices on Route 1, south of Raymond Road). It's a decent church, aimed primarily at the Princeton area, with an eye toward the seeker, and we've even helped from time to time with planning the service. I've even given them permission to use my dramas free of charge.
We recently decided to start looking again because, despite the many good things we see about the church, the 25- to 30-minute trip each way has kept us from getting plugged into the church and we feel Evangeline would benefit from actual children's ministry. Right now, because she is the oldest young child there -- and the next oldest is about 2½ years younger than her -- she's not getting much except playtime.
The teaching itself is sound, the pastor is a great guy, and as far as that goes I have none of the concerns, viz. lying, manipulation, betrayal of confidence, and dangerously false teaching, that I had with Abner. None of that's an issue for us -- we just need some place we can get plugged in and our daughter can grow.
They are planning to start a bona fide children's ministry. There are at least two women I know who want to get one started, and one of them isn't even a mother.
I think what they really need is a few more children.
My impression is that Howard also got a little too eager to get the church started and had unreasonably high expectations about how easy it would be. When they started at the Radisson, he told me he was expecting about 100 people to attend the first meeting, even though they had done very little to promote the church firsthand. There were about 40 people or so, including several from CGC who were there to lend moral support, but that number gradually dropped down to about 15 before they left the Radisson and moved to the Boy Scouts.
The move also has lost them a few people, but they seem to be gaining some new faces because of the drive and desire of a couple new members to see the church grow.
I'm not sure of the financial situation, although one of our unvoiced concerns was they way they seemed to be spending money unnecessarily on a few things. My understanding on that score, based on some things Howard has said in person and in sermons, is that they're being underwritten by a Baptist church in New York.
CGC was a good church, but not perfect. We're not looking for "another CGC," nor for the perfect church, but we are looking for one that has the qualities we think a church should have: a strong commitment to community, decent worship, solid teaching, a commitment to outreach and a decent children's program.
No luck so far, but I'm still hopeful we'll find something good.
That means a lot of good things, of course: They have a large church complex, plenty of resources, and I'm sure they have an excellent, professionally run children's ministry. Most megachurches do.
But it's too easy for me to get woefully disconnected and feel lost in a group that big, which is why I enjoyed Community Gospel Church so much. It was big enough to have some decent programs and resources, but small enough that it remained cozy.
We spent the past several months attending Cross Pointe Church in West Windsor (now meeting at the Boy Scouts offices on Route 1, south of Raymond Road). It's a decent church, aimed primarily at the Princeton area, with an eye toward the seeker, and we've even helped from time to time with planning the service. I've even given them permission to use my dramas free of charge.
We recently decided to start looking again because, despite the many good things we see about the church, the 25- to 30-minute trip each way has kept us from getting plugged into the church and we feel Evangeline would benefit from actual children's ministry. Right now, because she is the oldest young child there -- and the next oldest is about 2½ years younger than her -- she's not getting much except playtime.
The teaching itself is sound, the pastor is a great guy, and as far as that goes I have none of the concerns, viz. lying, manipulation, betrayal of confidence, and dangerously false teaching, that I had with Abner. None of that's an issue for us -- we just need some place we can get plugged in and our daughter can grow.
They are planning to start a bona fide children's ministry. There are at least two women I know who want to get one started, and one of them isn't even a mother.
I think what they really need is a few more children.
My impression is that Howard also got a little too eager to get the church started and had unreasonably high expectations about how easy it would be. When they started at the Radisson, he told me he was expecting about 100 people to attend the first meeting, even though they had done very little to promote the church firsthand. There were about 40 people or so, including several from CGC who were there to lend moral support, but that number gradually dropped down to about 15 before they left the Radisson and moved to the Boy Scouts.
The move also has lost them a few people, but they seem to be gaining some new faces because of the drive and desire of a couple new members to see the church grow.
I'm not sure of the financial situation, although one of our unvoiced concerns was they way they seemed to be spending money unnecessarily on a few things. My understanding on that score, based on some things Howard has said in person and in sermons, is that they're being underwritten by a Baptist church in New York.
CGC was a good church, but not perfect. We're not looking for "another CGC," nor for the perfect church, but we are looking for one that has the qualities we think a church should have: a strong commitment to community, decent worship, solid teaching, a commitment to outreach and a decent children's program.
No luck so far, but I'm still hopeful we'll find something good.
Wednesday, July 30, 2003
rip, bob hope
Trivia note: Bob Hope is the only civilian ever to be declared a veteran, under a special Act of Congress in recognition of his service to the troops.
I heard that one time during a war (WW2?), a heckler from the audience tried to get the better of Hope by demanding to know why he wasn't wearing a uniform and fighting alongside them? Hope's response: "Are you crazy? There's a war going on. Don't you know a guy could get hurt that way?"
But the truth is, Hope was anything but cowardly. From what I've read, he performed literally in sight of the front lines, and there was at least one occasion where a small group of soldiers missed the show, Hope learned about it, and took off after them -- toward the front lines -- in order for his troupe to give them a personal show.
I heard that one time during a war (WW2?), a heckler from the audience tried to get the better of Hope by demanding to know why he wasn't wearing a uniform and fighting alongside them? Hope's response: "Are you crazy? There's a war going on. Don't you know a guy could get hurt that way?"
But the truth is, Hope was anything but cowardly. From what I've read, he performed literally in sight of the front lines, and there was at least one occasion where a small group of soldiers missed the show, Hope learned about it, and took off after them -- toward the front lines -- in order for his troupe to give them a personal show.
angels and sin
y understanding -- and I'm afraid I don't recall the biblical justification for this, if there is one -- is that angels relate to God in an entirely different manner from us. A hybrid of spirit and flesh, we get only faint glimpses into the heavenlies, and so we live and are justified by faith.
Angels, on the other hand, don't have faith. As creatures of pure spirit, they see things as they are. They are witness to the awesome glory, majesty and power of God; they see the church invisible, sprawled out across spacetime; and so on. What we accept by faith, they see in entirety as plainly as you see the words on your monitor.
Because we act on faith and doubt, our sin can be forgiven, and even when we don't seek forgiveness, the punishment of our sin often is delayed. When an angel sins, as Lucifer did, it's in full knowledge of what he is doing. There is no room for repentance, and therefore no room for forgiveness.
Angels, on the other hand, don't have faith. As creatures of pure spirit, they see things as they are. They are witness to the awesome glory, majesty and power of God; they see the church invisible, sprawled out across spacetime; and so on. What we accept by faith, they see in entirety as plainly as you see the words on your monitor.
Because we act on faith and doubt, our sin can be forgiven, and even when we don't seek forgiveness, the punishment of our sin often is delayed. When an angel sins, as Lucifer did, it's in full knowledge of what he is doing. There is no room for repentance, and therefore no room for forgiveness.
philip yancey
I have heard Yancey described variously as someone who truly understands the human condition and how God relates to us, and as someone with a horrendously flawed view of God and how he relates to us, but I have not read anything he has written personally.
Friday, July 18, 2003
provide equality
A community pool might seem like an odd place to strike a blow for equal rights and fighting discrimination, but it's as good a place as many, and it's an area where bad policy recently has come to light.
We're talking about the case of Patti Jaworski and her partner, a same-sex couple told they don't qualify for family membership at Clark's pool because -- despite being together for eight years, and despite having held a private commitment ceremony together four years ago -- they're not considered a family under the state's definition. With the state definition providing the underpinnings for the pool policies, it's that simple: If you're not a legally married heterosexual couple, then you're not a family.
That's a defensible argument, legally speaking, but it leaves a bad taste. Is the intent here to serve the community, or to find legal justification to avoid taking a potentially risky stand? It seems like the latter. The hot potato of whether a same-sex couple should qualify for family rates has been passed up the chain of command from the word go. Assistant Pool Manager Rose Tomchak told Jaworski to ask the Pool Advisory Board, which passed the responsibility on to the Township Council, which let the township attorney dismiss the request with an embarrassing swiftness.
That's not just irresponsible, it's cowardly. At any point, somebody could have stepped forward and displayed some much-needed leadership on this issue, but no one did. As a consequence, an essentially discriminatory practice has gone unchallenged, and that's a shame. Does anyone seriously believe that the pool membership policy is intended to favor one living arrangement or sexual orientation over another? That's absurd. Such policies exist out of a recognition that families are an essential building block of any community, and that communities possess an obligation to accommodate those families. That accommodation should exist for nontraditional households as well as traditional ones.
To that end, the pool utility should alter its membership structure to include one for households. A wider catch-all than "family," which is more narrowly defined, household memberships could be available to domestic partnerships such as Jaworksi's, but also could encompass other arrangements such as unmarried boyfriends and girlfriends, with or without children; adult siblings living together; and so on. Such a setup recognizes the township's civil obligation to treat different lifestyles and situations equally, but does not tamper with the traditional definition of family used elsewhere in the township and in the state.
Given the glacial speed that municipal government moves, there clearly is no chance the Township Council fully can rectify its error before the end of the pool season is in sight. What it can do is offer Jaworski and her partner a formal apology for its decision, and take steps to remedy the situation for next year.
We're talking about the case of Patti Jaworski and her partner, a same-sex couple told they don't qualify for family membership at Clark's pool because -- despite being together for eight years, and despite having held a private commitment ceremony together four years ago -- they're not considered a family under the state's definition. With the state definition providing the underpinnings for the pool policies, it's that simple: If you're not a legally married heterosexual couple, then you're not a family.
That's a defensible argument, legally speaking, but it leaves a bad taste. Is the intent here to serve the community, or to find legal justification to avoid taking a potentially risky stand? It seems like the latter. The hot potato of whether a same-sex couple should qualify for family rates has been passed up the chain of command from the word go. Assistant Pool Manager Rose Tomchak told Jaworski to ask the Pool Advisory Board, which passed the responsibility on to the Township Council, which let the township attorney dismiss the request with an embarrassing swiftness.
That's not just irresponsible, it's cowardly. At any point, somebody could have stepped forward and displayed some much-needed leadership on this issue, but no one did. As a consequence, an essentially discriminatory practice has gone unchallenged, and that's a shame. Does anyone seriously believe that the pool membership policy is intended to favor one living arrangement or sexual orientation over another? That's absurd. Such policies exist out of a recognition that families are an essential building block of any community, and that communities possess an obligation to accommodate those families. That accommodation should exist for nontraditional households as well as traditional ones.
To that end, the pool utility should alter its membership structure to include one for households. A wider catch-all than "family," which is more narrowly defined, household memberships could be available to domestic partnerships such as Jaworksi's, but also could encompass other arrangements such as unmarried boyfriends and girlfriends, with or without children; adult siblings living together; and so on. Such a setup recognizes the township's civil obligation to treat different lifestyles and situations equally, but does not tamper with the traditional definition of family used elsewhere in the township and in the state.
Given the glacial speed that municipal government moves, there clearly is no chance the Township Council fully can rectify its error before the end of the pool season is in sight. What it can do is offer Jaworski and her partner a formal apology for its decision, and take steps to remedy the situation for next year.
Wednesday, July 16, 2003
gay marriage
I remember a book by Tony Campolo called "Twenty Hot Potatoes Christians are Afraid to Touch." One of those was the question of gay unions. Campolo took the position, and I think I agree with him, that a gay union -- I think he callde it a "covenant relationship" probably is the best route for gay couples to take who are unable to leave the lifestyle completely as many claim to have done through various counseling agencies.
The relationship he described is one where the couple provide emotional, financial and other forms of support for one another, much as a husband and wife do. This pretty much follows the commitment ceremony model now popular among gays and lesbians, and I really don't see any problem with it. Campolo went as far as specifying that the relationships ideally were celibate, though probably not void of expressions of affection, even physical affection. I know other prominent Christians have agreed with this idea to varying degrees; his wife, perhaps not exactly "prominent" agrees with him, although she feels there is nothing wrong with gay marriages that are not celibate.
So, in a round about way, I suppose I'm saying that what I would say is that two of them probably should remain together in whatever relationship their consciences dictate. That might mean continued cohabitation or it might not. A vow, once sworn, is sacred and should not be broken lightly.
The relationship he described is one where the couple provide emotional, financial and other forms of support for one another, much as a husband and wife do. This pretty much follows the commitment ceremony model now popular among gays and lesbians, and I really don't see any problem with it. Campolo went as far as specifying that the relationships ideally were celibate, though probably not void of expressions of affection, even physical affection. I know other prominent Christians have agreed with this idea to varying degrees; his wife, perhaps not exactly "prominent" agrees with him, although she feels there is nothing wrong with gay marriages that are not celibate.
So, in a round about way, I suppose I'm saying that what I would say is that two of them probably should remain together in whatever relationship their consciences dictate. That might mean continued cohabitation or it might not. A vow, once sworn, is sacred and should not be broken lightly.
Tuesday, July 15, 2003
Municipal pool denies family membership to same-sex couple
The temperatures will be in the 80s for
much of the next week, but don't expect to see
Patti Jaworski at the pool, no matter how hot
it gets.
It's not that she didn't try to get a pool membership before they expired. She tried. It's just that Jaworski and her same-sex partner were denied a family membership because they don't fit the township's definition of "family."
Township Attorney Joseph Triarsi, who wrote Jaworski and her partner a letter informing them of the township's decision, could not be reached for comment.
At the Township Council meeting when the question arose of whether to grant the requested family membership, his immediate advice was to reject it based on the legal definition of "family" of a married man and woman.
"They're not a recognized family unit," he said at the time.
Calls to the state Attorney General's Office on whether that distinction could be considered discriminatory were not returned.
The decision does not ban either Jaworski or her partner — an untenured elementary school teacher in another county, she asked not to be identified for fear of anti-gay discrimination — from joining the pool at the more expensive rate for singles.
They are not joining anyway.
"I want no part of it," Jaworski said Monday afternoon. "I'll just go to the beach. I'll just spend my money there."
The experience differs sharply from the experiences Jaworski claims to have had elsewhere in Clark.
It becomes all the more difficult to digest because she grew up in Clark and knows some of her elected officials from their days at Arthur L. Johnson Regional High School, including Mayor Sal Bonaccorso and 4th Ward Councilman Brian Toal.
"It was very disheartening to get this response," said Jaworski. "It was kind of like a slap in the face."
Discussion at the council meeting was virtually nonexistent, but Tuesday night Toal said he personally would have no problem with the family membership if the council's legal counsel had not recommended otherwise.
"The pool committee should have given us a directive, 'We have no problem with it,'" he said. "They threw it at the council, and our attorney said the state doesn't recognize it. That's where it stops."
Jaworski and her partner have no children. They been together for eight years, and held a private commitment ceremony four years ago.
"I really think the township is missing the boat," Jaworski, a Middlesex County high school health and physical education teacher, said Monday afternoon. "I'm really disappointed in their answer."
The two of them live on Lefferts Lane, in the house Jaworski grew up in.
Jaworski's quest for a family membership began toward the end of June when she visited the Clark pool office at the Charles H. Brewer Municipal Building.
There, she said, Assistant Pool Director Rose Tomchak told her to make the request in a letter to the Township Council, which denied it during its July 8 meeting.
"It's a sleepy little town and I think it just needs a few more years before it wakes up and realizes we're not the only couple in this situation," said Jaworski.
Despite her severe disappointment in the township's decision, Jaworski said she has no desire to make her case in court.
"As an educator, I always tell my students, 'Ask any questions, but when you ask any question, there's a 50-50 chance the answer will be no,'" she said. "What kind of educator would I be if I don't do what I'm telling my students?"
With the stipulation that the family couple be married, the policy at the pool also would preclude unmarried couples with children from family membership. No information was available at presstime to say whether this actually was the case.
At the moment, no states in the union confer same-sex unions the same status as marriages, although Vermont recently recognized them as civil unions, a classification one step short of marriage.
"It's the 21st century," said Toal simply. "It's something that should be looked in with a legal standpoint in the near future."
It's not that she didn't try to get a pool membership before they expired. She tried. It's just that Jaworski and her same-sex partner were denied a family membership because they don't fit the township's definition of "family."
Township Attorney Joseph Triarsi, who wrote Jaworski and her partner a letter informing them of the township's decision, could not be reached for comment.
At the Township Council meeting when the question arose of whether to grant the requested family membership, his immediate advice was to reject it based on the legal definition of "family" of a married man and woman.
"They're not a recognized family unit," he said at the time.
Calls to the state Attorney General's Office on whether that distinction could be considered discriminatory were not returned.
The decision does not ban either Jaworski or her partner — an untenured elementary school teacher in another county, she asked not to be identified for fear of anti-gay discrimination — from joining the pool at the more expensive rate for singles.
They are not joining anyway.
"I want no part of it," Jaworski said Monday afternoon. "I'll just go to the beach. I'll just spend my money there."
The experience differs sharply from the experiences Jaworski claims to have had elsewhere in Clark.
It becomes all the more difficult to digest because she grew up in Clark and knows some of her elected officials from their days at Arthur L. Johnson Regional High School, including Mayor Sal Bonaccorso and 4th Ward Councilman Brian Toal.
"It was very disheartening to get this response," said Jaworski. "It was kind of like a slap in the face."
Discussion at the council meeting was virtually nonexistent, but Tuesday night Toal said he personally would have no problem with the family membership if the council's legal counsel had not recommended otherwise.
"The pool committee should have given us a directive, 'We have no problem with it,'" he said. "They threw it at the council, and our attorney said the state doesn't recognize it. That's where it stops."
Jaworski and her partner have no children. They been together for eight years, and held a private commitment ceremony four years ago.
"I really think the township is missing the boat," Jaworski, a Middlesex County high school health and physical education teacher, said Monday afternoon. "I'm really disappointed in their answer."
The two of them live on Lefferts Lane, in the house Jaworski grew up in.
Jaworski's quest for a family membership began toward the end of June when she visited the Clark pool office at the Charles H. Brewer Municipal Building.
There, she said, Assistant Pool Director Rose Tomchak told her to make the request in a letter to the Township Council, which denied it during its July 8 meeting.
"It's a sleepy little town and I think it just needs a few more years before it wakes up and realizes we're not the only couple in this situation," said Jaworski.
Despite her severe disappointment in the township's decision, Jaworski said she has no desire to make her case in court.
"As an educator, I always tell my students, 'Ask any questions, but when you ask any question, there's a 50-50 chance the answer will be no,'" she said. "What kind of educator would I be if I don't do what I'm telling my students?"
With the stipulation that the family couple be married, the policy at the pool also would preclude unmarried couples with children from family membership. No information was available at presstime to say whether this actually was the case.
At the moment, no states in the union confer same-sex unions the same status as marriages, although Vermont recently recognized them as civil unions, a classification one step short of marriage.
"It's the 21st century," said Toal simply. "It's something that should be looked in with a legal standpoint in the near future."
Thursday, July 10, 2003
geese and holocaust
I've got to hand it to the animal-rights fringe -- they sure know how to hurt their own cause.
The incident that prompts this observation is a letter to the editor a member of that fringe recently sent to the newspaper chain where I work. The woman, a Springfield, Iowa, resident, wrote to express her gratitude that county officials there had stopped killing Canada geese as they were allowed to under a federal permit, and then had the gall to compare the culling to the Holocaust.
It's hard to imagine a more audacious comparison. The Holocaust, for those who have forgotten, involved the deliberate, cold-blooded murder of 6 million people because of their ethnicity. Another 6 million were killed because of their political views, their sexual orientation, trade affiliations and their religious practices.
Please note that the victims were people, and not animals. There is a difference, and it's a very real one.
For starters, the intelligence of the average human is much higher than that of animals, particularly animals like geese, whose brains aren't even the size of a walnut.
That intelligence in turn gives rise to a number of other differences: We can sift through experiences and things we have learned from other people, and imagine possible outcomes.
Because we also feel, we can invest powerful emotions like fear and love into our past, our present and what we imagine the future will bring.
That imagination also allows us to anthropomorphize animals. Because dogs live in a pack hierarchy similar to our own family structure, we imagine that our dogs love us when they recognize us as top dog and fit into their adopted pack. Because cats are solitary animals, we complain that they're aloof, capricious and unfeeling.
And because geese look cute and feathery, we imagine they must feel terror as they are silently and painlessly put down.
With all due respect to this woman and others who oppose killing Canada geese and other suburban wildlife, it's hard to imagine a more inappropriate or offensive way to describe the culling than comparing them to Holocaust as she did.
I highly recommend that she and others who think the Holocaust is an excellent metaphor for killing geese actually do some reading about the Holocaust and learn about the experiences of people who survived it.
The first book I would recommend is Elie Wiesel's "Night." It's blunt and forceful, and it explains quite clearly what it meant to be pushed into a crowded rail car and rushed off to Auschwitz as part of Hitler's final solution of genocide.
I'd also recommend checking Art Spiegelman's Pulitzer-winning graphic novel "Maus." Spiegelman uses visual metaphors for his father's experiences - Jews as mice, Nazis as cats and civilians as pigs -- but the visuals and anguish are unforgettable.
If books aren't your thing and you prefer a nice visual, check out a film like the documentary "Night and Holocaust," available with English subtitles; or one of the more recent Hollywood accounts of the Holocaust, like "The Pianist" or "Schindler's List."
Your priorities need some serious readjustment if you honestly think for one minute that the destruction of 700 geese -- that's how many Union County officials had killed before they stopped -- deserves even a fleeting comparison with an ethnic massacre like the one Hitler perpetrated during World War II.
Fans of the geese also might want to think a little more about the situation and reasons for reducing the goose population. The program wasn't inaugurated by cold-blooded sadists. It was driven by the necessity of overpopulation.
Canada geese are one of the biggest wildlife nuisances in Iowa. They're not as dangerous as deer can be in the sense of auto damage or fatalities, but they're overpopulated and the mess they leave all over lawns, public parks and wherever else they go, poses a health risk to other creatures, particularly children, who are not only cuter but a lot more important than geese any day.
In any event, the county's program wasn't about extermination, it was about control. With precious little in the way of natural predators around to control the geese, and with a federal ban on goose hunting in place for decades, the goose population has swelled beyond the point of reason.
In a strictly ecological sense, humans serve a function as predators. We do ourselves and other participants in the environment a disservice when we keep ourselves from fulfilling that function.
At the moment, laws prevent hunters from killing geese for food, with the result that the population has reached a level the county had to take the more drastic action of gassing hundreds of them.
I have no idea what makes animal-rights advocates like Faszczewski so passionate about their cause that they become willfully ignorant of the fallout of a no-kill policy.
Maybe she and others opposed to the goose killing know of an alternative to the killing that I'm still unaware of. If that's the case, they owe it to everybody to trumpet that solution loud and clear.
In the meantime, though, I think we can all do without hearing animal control compared to ethnic cleansing or genocide. The two have nothing in common, and to insist otherwise is an insult of the worst degree.
The incident that prompts this observation is a letter to the editor a member of that fringe recently sent to the newspaper chain where I work. The woman, a Springfield, Iowa, resident, wrote to express her gratitude that county officials there had stopped killing Canada geese as they were allowed to under a federal permit, and then had the gall to compare the culling to the Holocaust.
It's hard to imagine a more audacious comparison. The Holocaust, for those who have forgotten, involved the deliberate, cold-blooded murder of 6 million people because of their ethnicity. Another 6 million were killed because of their political views, their sexual orientation, trade affiliations and their religious practices.
Please note that the victims were people, and not animals. There is a difference, and it's a very real one.
For starters, the intelligence of the average human is much higher than that of animals, particularly animals like geese, whose brains aren't even the size of a walnut.
That intelligence in turn gives rise to a number of other differences: We can sift through experiences and things we have learned from other people, and imagine possible outcomes.
Because we also feel, we can invest powerful emotions like fear and love into our past, our present and what we imagine the future will bring.
That imagination also allows us to anthropomorphize animals. Because dogs live in a pack hierarchy similar to our own family structure, we imagine that our dogs love us when they recognize us as top dog and fit into their adopted pack. Because cats are solitary animals, we complain that they're aloof, capricious and unfeeling.
And because geese look cute and feathery, we imagine they must feel terror as they are silently and painlessly put down.
With all due respect to this woman and others who oppose killing Canada geese and other suburban wildlife, it's hard to imagine a more inappropriate or offensive way to describe the culling than comparing them to Holocaust as she did.
I highly recommend that she and others who think the Holocaust is an excellent metaphor for killing geese actually do some reading about the Holocaust and learn about the experiences of people who survived it.
The first book I would recommend is Elie Wiesel's "Night." It's blunt and forceful, and it explains quite clearly what it meant to be pushed into a crowded rail car and rushed off to Auschwitz as part of Hitler's final solution of genocide.
I'd also recommend checking Art Spiegelman's Pulitzer-winning graphic novel "Maus." Spiegelman uses visual metaphors for his father's experiences - Jews as mice, Nazis as cats and civilians as pigs -- but the visuals and anguish are unforgettable.
If books aren't your thing and you prefer a nice visual, check out a film like the documentary "Night and Holocaust," available with English subtitles; or one of the more recent Hollywood accounts of the Holocaust, like "The Pianist" or "Schindler's List."
Your priorities need some serious readjustment if you honestly think for one minute that the destruction of 700 geese -- that's how many Union County officials had killed before they stopped -- deserves even a fleeting comparison with an ethnic massacre like the one Hitler perpetrated during World War II.
Fans of the geese also might want to think a little more about the situation and reasons for reducing the goose population. The program wasn't inaugurated by cold-blooded sadists. It was driven by the necessity of overpopulation.
Canada geese are one of the biggest wildlife nuisances in Iowa. They're not as dangerous as deer can be in the sense of auto damage or fatalities, but they're overpopulated and the mess they leave all over lawns, public parks and wherever else they go, poses a health risk to other creatures, particularly children, who are not only cuter but a lot more important than geese any day.
In any event, the county's program wasn't about extermination, it was about control. With precious little in the way of natural predators around to control the geese, and with a federal ban on goose hunting in place for decades, the goose population has swelled beyond the point of reason.
In a strictly ecological sense, humans serve a function as predators. We do ourselves and other participants in the environment a disservice when we keep ourselves from fulfilling that function.
At the moment, laws prevent hunters from killing geese for food, with the result that the population has reached a level the county had to take the more drastic action of gassing hundreds of them.
I have no idea what makes animal-rights advocates like Faszczewski so passionate about their cause that they become willfully ignorant of the fallout of a no-kill policy.
Maybe she and others opposed to the goose killing know of an alternative to the killing that I'm still unaware of. If that's the case, they owe it to everybody to trumpet that solution loud and clear.
In the meantime, though, I think we can all do without hearing animal control compared to ethnic cleansing or genocide. The two have nothing in common, and to insist otherwise is an insult of the worst degree.
church life
I was raised in the Presbyertian Church and joined it when I was old enough, primarily because that was what was expected. It was a pretty dull church to attend, and it was pretty dead spiritually. I honestly can't think of one thing I learned there, except that church is boring and you have to do stupid things you don't want to, that what we do there has no bearing on our lives during the rest of the week and that when you press grown-ups for answers you'll find that they don't have them. (No joke -- my high school Sunday school teacher didn't know that Abraham appeared in the Bible before Moses, and argued the point with me until I showed him.)
I made a commitment to follow Christ when I was nearly 18, and so I started looking for something that was radically different from what I had grown up in, and found that in the Assembly of God church in Ashton, Pa., not too far from where I was attending college.
There were other things that made me stay away from PC(USA) churches: Among the church's official doctrines are teachings like the Bible is not the inerrant Word of God, Christ is not the only way to heaven, there is no such place as hell, the Devil does not exist and so on. I even saw some literature about a presentation at some supercongregational level (I don't recall if it was the synod, the Generl Assembly or something else) that worshiping a male savior is detrimental to a woman's spiritual growth.
We visit my parents' church when we're in Saunders Station, out of respect for them, but it's generally not a denomination I have much interest in rejoining, even though I recognize there are plenty of good churches still in it.
ETA: I've been told that I am mistaken on almost all these points. I'll have to take his word for it; I haven't been a member of the PCUSA for something like 16 years and as a lay minister he is going to be more knowledgeable than I about such things. It may be either my understanding or my memory is faulty, although I've met other former PCUSA'ers with the same or similar concerns.
I made a commitment to follow Christ when I was nearly 18, and so I started looking for something that was radically different from what I had grown up in, and found that in the Assembly of God church in Ashton, Pa., not too far from where I was attending college.
There were other things that made me stay away from PC(USA) churches: Among the church's official doctrines are teachings like the Bible is not the inerrant Word of God, Christ is not the only way to heaven, there is no such place as hell, the Devil does not exist and so on. I even saw some literature about a presentation at some supercongregational level (I don't recall if it was the synod, the Generl Assembly or something else) that worshiping a male savior is detrimental to a woman's spiritual growth.
We visit my parents' church when we're in Saunders Station, out of respect for them, but it's generally not a denomination I have much interest in rejoining, even though I recognize there are plenty of good churches still in it.
ETA: I've been told that I am mistaken on almost all these points. I'll have to take his word for it; I haven't been a member of the PCUSA for something like 16 years and as a lay minister he is going to be more knowledgeable than I about such things. It may be either my understanding or my memory is faulty, although I've met other former PCUSA'ers with the same or similar concerns.
out
A good friend of mine in Georgia was just decloseted to her parents by a sibling who discovered her secret accidentally.
It's at times like this that I really hate the fact that being part of an Internet community, because there is no way we can reach out to other members of that community when they need our support -- not really, not in a tangible way. I wish I could be there for my friend right now.
I think I speak for all of us at CHRefugee when I say that there is no condemnation here for our friend over issues pertaining to her sexuality. She is our friend, and she is our sister, and nothing is going to change that. I really wish I could be there to help; my heart is breaking right now that I can't.
I'm sorry her family found out this way, as I'm sure she is as well. I'm praying right now for everyone concerned. This is one of those long, dark times of the soul, and it's going to be rough getting through it.
It's at times like this that I really hate the fact that being part of an Internet community, because there is no way we can reach out to other members of that community when they need our support -- not really, not in a tangible way. I wish I could be there for my friend right now.
I think I speak for all of us at CHRefugee when I say that there is no condemnation here for our friend over issues pertaining to her sexuality. She is our friend, and she is our sister, and nothing is going to change that. I really wish I could be there to help; my heart is breaking right now that I can't.
I'm sorry her family found out this way, as I'm sure she is as well. I'm praying right now for everyone concerned. This is one of those long, dark times of the soul, and it's going to be rough getting through it.
Monday, July 07, 2003
dolores umbridge
Interesting thoughts as I ponder one of the new characters to arrive in "Order of the Phoenix."
"Dolores" is plural of "dolor," which means "woe" or "trouble." Umbridge clearly is a homophone of umbrage. Check out the Dictionary.com definition of umbrage. My own thought process was along the lines of the secondary or tertiary definition of "umbrage" that has to deal with jealousy over somebody else's abilities.
Look at the character: She's a lousy teacher, a horrible disciplinarian and apparently a useless witch (except perhaps at espionage). Rowling makes a point of how small Umbridge's wand is; the books indicate that bigger wands indicate greater puissance at magic. The implication is that Umbridge is attacking everyone bigger than she is: Dumbledore, Harry, McGonagall, you name it.
My guess is she was a Slytherin back in school.
"Dolores" is plural of "dolor," which means "woe" or "trouble." Umbridge clearly is a homophone of umbrage. Check out the Dictionary.com definition of umbrage. My own thought process was along the lines of the secondary or tertiary definition of "umbrage" that has to deal with jealousy over somebody else's abilities.
Look at the character: She's a lousy teacher, a horrible disciplinarian and apparently a useless witch (except perhaps at espionage). Rowling makes a point of how small Umbridge's wand is; the books indicate that bigger wands indicate greater puissance at magic. The implication is that Umbridge is attacking everyone bigger than she is: Dumbledore, Harry, McGonagall, you name it.
My guess is she was a Slytherin back in school.
Sunday, July 06, 2003
the third parent
If you have an older sibling, chances are pretty good you understand what I mean when I use the phrase "the third parent."
In our family, the third parent was my oldest brother, Brian. Brian traditionally has thought nothing of issuing directives to us, or of translating a parental request into a command.
I believe when we were kids he tried to be the heavy and make us do our chores (in all fairness they were ours to do, not his) when our parents were out. About six years ago, for example, we were both visiting our parents, and our mother asked him to get me up. Brian comes up the stairs, opens the door to my bedroom, and with the light of divine revelation setting his face aglow, commanded me: "Dave, up!"
I never did like that.
So tonight, Rachel was trying to play with something that Evangeline also was trying to play with. After a while, I guess it started to get on Evangeline's nerves and she said, "Rachel, you're in time out."
I thought I contained myself pretty well. I didn't spank Evangeline. I didn't growl at her or give her a lecture at the top of my lungs. I scooped her up, told her never to presume to punish Rachel again, and said it was time for bed.
Natasha pointed out to me that Evangeline isn't Brian and just because I had problems with him doing that doesn't mean I have to take them out on Evangeline.
*sigh*
Our story is a generational one, isn't it?
I'm sure there are times when an older sibling really does valid input or advice that younger siblings can benefit from. I've had some for my youngest brother, Herb, that he's taken, and I've received from Brian and from Herb, brother number two. (I'm number three if anyone's trying to keep count.)
There's a difference between giving advice and trying to run another person's life, and between passing on instructions from mom and dad and just being a bossy jerk. In the latter choice of each of those pairs, the older sibling generally would do everybody a favor by sitting down and shutting up.
In our family, the third parent was my oldest brother, Brian. Brian traditionally has thought nothing of issuing directives to us, or of translating a parental request into a command.
I believe when we were kids he tried to be the heavy and make us do our chores (in all fairness they were ours to do, not his) when our parents were out. About six years ago, for example, we were both visiting our parents, and our mother asked him to get me up. Brian comes up the stairs, opens the door to my bedroom, and with the light of divine revelation setting his face aglow, commanded me: "Dave, up!"
I never did like that.
So tonight, Rachel was trying to play with something that Evangeline also was trying to play with. After a while, I guess it started to get on Evangeline's nerves and she said, "Rachel, you're in time out."
I thought I contained myself pretty well. I didn't spank Evangeline. I didn't growl at her or give her a lecture at the top of my lungs. I scooped her up, told her never to presume to punish Rachel again, and said it was time for bed.
Natasha pointed out to me that Evangeline isn't Brian and just because I had problems with him doing that doesn't mean I have to take them out on Evangeline.
*sigh*
Our story is a generational one, isn't it?
I'm sure there are times when an older sibling really does valid input or advice that younger siblings can benefit from. I've had some for my youngest brother, Herb, that he's taken, and I've received from Brian and from Herb, brother number two. (I'm number three if anyone's trying to keep count.)
There's a difference between giving advice and trying to run another person's life, and between passing on instructions from mom and dad and just being a bossy jerk. In the latter choice of each of those pairs, the older sibling generally would do everybody a favor by sitting down and shutting up.
harry potter
I don't consider the Harry Potter books to be a doorway to occultism and witchcraft any more than I see James Bond as a portal to a career in international espionage.
That said, I do concur that the series has ceased to be "children's literature." The first two books -- maybe even the first three -- are suitable for young readers, but from everything I've read of Book 5 so far, I think the book more apprioately should be marketed towrd teens or young adults.
We're going to take it look-and-see with Evangeline, I expect. If she wants to read Harry Potter when she's at the right vocabulary and maturity level, we'll consider it. But I'm not going to encourage her to read them for a while.
Book Five han't been that bad for me yet, although we're only to the point that we've learned how Hagrid spent his summer vacation. The worst part for me has been some of what Harry has had to endure at during detention and various other punishments that have been inflicted. Not sure why it's affecting me in this particular way -- perhaps because it's not as obvious and extreme as Cedric's death in "Goblet of Fire," it becomes worse to read about. Plus, Umbridge reminds me of the principal at the first school I taught at, because of that favorite facial expression of hers.
I think "umbridge" should become a new epithet.
Natasha and I have to take the book slowly because the children and my job place other demands on our time. It's giving us time to figure out what Rowling is doing, and now that we've read about Harry's second essay for Snape, I want to re-read the first four books and see if there were other hidden messages that Harry missed.
That said, I do concur that the series has ceased to be "children's literature." The first two books -- maybe even the first three -- are suitable for young readers, but from everything I've read of Book 5 so far, I think the book more apprioately should be marketed towrd teens or young adults.
We're going to take it look-and-see with Evangeline, I expect. If she wants to read Harry Potter when she's at the right vocabulary and maturity level, we'll consider it. But I'm not going to encourage her to read them for a while.
Book Five han't been that bad for me yet, although we're only to the point that we've learned how Hagrid spent his summer vacation. The worst part for me has been some of what Harry has had to endure at during detention and various other punishments that have been inflicted. Not sure why it's affecting me in this particular way -- perhaps because it's not as obvious and extreme as Cedric's death in "Goblet of Fire," it becomes worse to read about. Plus, Umbridge reminds me of the principal at the first school I taught at, because of that favorite facial expression of hers.
I think "umbridge" should become a new epithet.
Natasha and I have to take the book slowly because the children and my job place other demands on our time. It's giving us time to figure out what Rowling is doing, and now that we've read about Harry's second essay for Snape, I want to re-read the first four books and see if there were other hidden messages that Harry missed.
Wednesday, July 02, 2003
red riding hood
"Little Red Riding Hood" is a great example. In one of the older versions of the story, the wolf goes to the grandmother's house, kills her, pours her blood into a bottle and lays her cut-up flesh out on a platter. And it's just getting started.
Along comes Red Riding Hood. The wolf -- dressed as Grandma, and waiting in the bed -- tells her, "I've laid out some meat and some wine for you."
Red Riding Hood drinks the wine, and a voice cries, "Slut! to drink your own grandmother's blood!" She eats the meat, and a voice cries, ""Whore! to eat your own grandmother's flesh!"
From there, Red Riding Hood is instructed to undress and throw her clothes into the fire and then join her grandmother in the bed to warm her up. The story follows the traditional big nose, big eyes, big teeth routine -- and then wolf eats her.
Red Riding Hood drinks the wine, and a voice cries, "Slut! to drink your own grandmother's blood!" She eats the meat, and a voice cries, ""Whore! to eat your own grandmother's flesh!"
From there, Red Riding Hood is instructed to undress and throw her clothes into the fire and then join her grandmother in the bed to warm her up. The story follows the traditional big nose, big eyes, big teeth routine -- and then wolf eats her.
It's a positively gruesome story. No woodsman comes to save them with an ax. There is no miraculous rescue from the wolf. It's essentially a metaphor for the girl's rape and a warning about the dangers of traveling alone and not listening to your parents.
And if you think the Brothers Grimm had gruesome and disturbing fairy tales, consider that they actually cleaned them up from the stories they had heard as children.
Copyright © 2003 by David Learn. Used with permission.
Tweet
dostoevsky
I guess I'm the odd man out, but I absolutely *loved* "Crime and Punishment." After I finished it, I went out and got a copy of "The Brothers Karamazov."
The trick, I suppose -- if trick it is -- is not to read the books as crime novels. Raskolnikov's double homicide is the vehicle for larger themes Dostoevsky addresses in the book, not the purpose itself of the book. I believe the Russian Orthodox Church considers Dostoevsky one of its finest theologians or apologists. That's actually not a bad description of the man. His writing addresses a lot of issues the church and society have struggled with for millenia: human suffering, crushing poverty, the failure of religion, religious zealotry, sensuality, ethics and -- of course -- Nietzche's notion of the übermensch (Raskolnikov in "Crime and Punishment" and Ivan and Gregory in "The Brothers Karamazov").
Flannery O'Conner is also another good author. I read "The Violent Bear it Away" back in college for a religion and literature course I took. Not sure how I would characterize that book. Certainly disturbing, such as the way Bishop's father portrays himself as the epitome of compassion, and then turns off his hearing aid so he can't hear Bishop being drowned.
The trick, I suppose -- if trick it is -- is not to read the books as crime novels. Raskolnikov's double homicide is the vehicle for larger themes Dostoevsky addresses in the book, not the purpose itself of the book. I believe the Russian Orthodox Church considers Dostoevsky one of its finest theologians or apologists. That's actually not a bad description of the man. His writing addresses a lot of issues the church and society have struggled with for millenia: human suffering, crushing poverty, the failure of religion, religious zealotry, sensuality, ethics and -- of course -- Nietzche's notion of the übermensch (Raskolnikov in "Crime and Punishment" and Ivan and Gregory in "The Brothers Karamazov").
Flannery O'Conner is also another good author. I read "The Violent Bear it Away" back in college for a religion and literature course I took. Not sure how I would characterize that book. Certainly disturbing, such as the way Bishop's father portrays himself as the epitome of compassion, and then turns off his hearing aid so he can't hear Bishop being drowned.
Tuesday, June 24, 2003
so jane roe's a christian
Norma McCorvey (famously known from Roe v. Wade), recently filed suit over her original suit that ended in the Roe v. Wade decision. (McCorvey is now a Christian and pro-life.) A correspondent of mine complains that this is "the most ignored story since Alan Keyes ran for president!"
Yeah, yeah. It's that liberal bias again.
Gee, perhaps it was ignored because it isn't really much of a story. As the judge notes, petitions such as McCorvey's are meant to be filed in a more timely manner than the one she filed. It's a symbolic thing that's likely to get a lot of attention within activist circles, but has little to no news value outside those circles.
If I were editor of a national newspaper, I wouldn't assign a reporter to cover it. At best, it might make the news briefs in a metro daily I were editing. (Of course, if she lived in our coverage area, I might ask for a feature on what has prompted her turnaround -- although, again, the time for that feature really would have been 10 years ago when she adopted a pro-life philosophy.)
As to Keyes, I don't buy that reflects a media bias against him either. Major news media do cover the presidential primaries -- sometimes with a little too much attention, such as the way we're already starting to hear about the 2004 and even 2008 (!) races -- but after a while it gets to be pretty obvious who the major contenders are. It's not usually a wise allocation of resources to devote equal attention to dark horses as to front runners. I've seen papers do it -- I've done it myself when it's happened within my coverage area -- and contrary to what the "slighted" candidates and parties say, it really doesn't have a substantial effect on the end count.
Still, it's an unusual situation, since it involves the plaintiff in a Supreme Court decision appealing a ruling that went in her favor. Here's how I would develop the story from that angle:
1) Plaintiff in case is seeking reversal of decision that was in her favor.
2) Explanation of legal process, why and how such filings are made.
3) Talk about the arguments pro and con for the judge's decision to throw out this particular request.
4) Quote a few legal experts for their perspective on the whole thing, like "Did it ever stand a chance?"
5) Find any other unusual precedents.
Pretty dry stuff, of little interest to the average reader. If an editor assigned it to me, I would write it, but I wouldn't volunteer to do it, except as a sidebar to a larger story, which as I said, this particular filing didn't warrant in my judgment. As an editor, I wouldn't assign it, unless I'm the editor of a legal journal -- and even then, since the judge made the only decision you could expect, I doubt I would think it's worth much more than a footnote.
Which is what it appeared to have received.
Yeah, yeah. It's that liberal bias again.
Gee, perhaps it was ignored because it isn't really much of a story. As the judge notes, petitions such as McCorvey's are meant to be filed in a more timely manner than the one she filed. It's a symbolic thing that's likely to get a lot of attention within activist circles, but has little to no news value outside those circles.
If I were editor of a national newspaper, I wouldn't assign a reporter to cover it. At best, it might make the news briefs in a metro daily I were editing. (Of course, if she lived in our coverage area, I might ask for a feature on what has prompted her turnaround -- although, again, the time for that feature really would have been 10 years ago when she adopted a pro-life philosophy.)
As to Keyes, I don't buy that reflects a media bias against him either. Major news media do cover the presidential primaries -- sometimes with a little too much attention, such as the way we're already starting to hear about the 2004 and even 2008 (!) races -- but after a while it gets to be pretty obvious who the major contenders are. It's not usually a wise allocation of resources to devote equal attention to dark horses as to front runners. I've seen papers do it -- I've done it myself when it's happened within my coverage area -- and contrary to what the "slighted" candidates and parties say, it really doesn't have a substantial effect on the end count.
Still, it's an unusual situation, since it involves the plaintiff in a Supreme Court decision appealing a ruling that went in her favor. Here's how I would develop the story from that angle:
1) Plaintiff in case is seeking reversal of decision that was in her favor.
2) Explanation of legal process, why and how such filings are made.
3) Talk about the arguments pro and con for the judge's decision to throw out this particular request.
4) Quote a few legal experts for their perspective on the whole thing, like "Did it ever stand a chance?"
5) Find any other unusual precedents.
Pretty dry stuff, of little interest to the average reader. If an editor assigned it to me, I would write it, but I wouldn't volunteer to do it, except as a sidebar to a larger story, which as I said, this particular filing didn't warrant in my judgment. As an editor, I wouldn't assign it, unless I'm the editor of a legal journal -- and even then, since the judge made the only decision you could expect, I doubt I would think it's worth much more than a footnote.
Which is what it appeared to have received.
Friday, June 20, 2003
loving god
Desiring God is good. It's not always possible, though, which I think is one of the reasons the Bible calls the fear of the Lord the beginning of wisdom and describes fear and obedience as the whole duty of man. If you can learn to love him, so much the better, but too often we toss that phrase around without ever really understanding what it means to love.
As a result of the struggles committed couples experience in marriage, they understand what a burden love really is, and they understand how it's a burden that can be joyful but still remains a burden. It's the same in our relationship with God. Often what Christians call loving God is just an infatuation because we don't let ourselves get close enough to deal with God in real intimacy and discover the wild and uncontrolled depths of his passion for us.
God's love is a dangerous thing; experiencing it is like swimming in a cataract with only a life vest.
So how do you do that?
Luke 10:25-37
On one occasion an expert of the law stood up to test Jesus.
"Teacher," he asked, "What must I do to inherit eternal life?"
"What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"
He answered," 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind' and 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"
"You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live."
But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"
In reply Jesus said: "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he had compassion for him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper. 'Look after him' he said, 'and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.'
"Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?"
The expert in the law replied, "The one who showed compassion." Jesus told him, "Go and do likewise."
Luke 18:18-22
A ruler questioned Him, saying, "Good teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"
And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.
"You know the commandments, 'Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not bear false witness, honor your father and your mother.'"
And he said, "All these things I have kept from my youth."
When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "One thing you still lack; sell all that you possess and distribute it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."
As a result of the struggles committed couples experience in marriage, they understand what a burden love really is, and they understand how it's a burden that can be joyful but still remains a burden. It's the same in our relationship with God. Often what Christians call loving God is just an infatuation because we don't let ourselves get close enough to deal with God in real intimacy and discover the wild and uncontrolled depths of his passion for us.
God's love is a dangerous thing; experiencing it is like swimming in a cataract with only a life vest.
So how do you do that?
Luke 10:25-37
On one occasion an expert of the law stood up to test Jesus.
"Teacher," he asked, "What must I do to inherit eternal life?"
"What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"
He answered," 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind' and 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"
"You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live."
But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"
In reply Jesus said: "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he had compassion for him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper. 'Look after him' he said, 'and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.'
"Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?"
The expert in the law replied, "The one who showed compassion." Jesus told him, "Go and do likewise."
Luke 18:18-22
A ruler questioned Him, saying, "Good teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"
And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.
"You know the commandments, 'Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not bear false witness, honor your father and your mother.'"
And he said, "All these things I have kept from my youth."
When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "One thing you still lack; sell all that you possess and distribute it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."
Sunday, June 15, 2003
crop failure revisited
So far so good. My Yukon gold potatoes have a stack of three tires now. I just added some more compost to the mound this morning, so hopefully things are going well and new potatoes are growing even as we speak. (If I find myself with an overabundance, people are always welcome to come by this fall and share the joys of the harvest.)
The red potatoes haven't done as well. Even though I planted them the same time as the Yukon golds, it wasn't until some time last week that I saw the first sprouts poking through the dirt. Not sure why that would be. To the best of my knowledge, they hadn't been treated with anti-root growth hormone.
Ah well...
The red potatoes haven't done as well. Even though I planted them the same time as the Yukon golds, it wasn't until some time last week that I saw the first sprouts poking through the dirt. Not sure why that would be. To the best of my knowledge, they hadn't been treated with anti-root growth hormone.
Ah well...
Saturday, June 14, 2003
'the two towers' extended DVD
I'd be waiting for the extended DVD in any event, but the news that the extended footage includes scenes that will explain the change in Faramir's characterization, has really cinched it for me.
And on a completely random side note, I wonder how the LotR movies are affecting the names people are giving their children. A few years ago, "The Matrix" led to a burst in the use of "Trinity" as a girl's name, and "Morpheus" actually had five uses in a single year, enough to put it on the list of active names. (No joke; somebody for some reason actually keeps track of the names people give their kids, probably for demographic purposes, and cuts it off at five. "Morpheus" had been unknown as a name since mythological times, and now it's back.)
We named our daughter Eowyn, but that was just because we love Tolkien's books and we picked the name nearly three years before the first movie came out. But I'm wondering now if she's more likely to run into other girls named Eowyn, with or without the diacretic, and if she's going to bump into a boy named Faramir and have to enjoy the obvious jokes. As long as his name's not Grima, I suppose ...
And on a completely random side note, I wonder how the LotR movies are affecting the names people are giving their children. A few years ago, "The Matrix" led to a burst in the use of "Trinity" as a girl's name, and "Morpheus" actually had five uses in a single year, enough to put it on the list of active names. (No joke; somebody for some reason actually keeps track of the names people give their kids, probably for demographic purposes, and cuts it off at five. "Morpheus" had been unknown as a name since mythological times, and now it's back.)
We named our daughter Eowyn, but that was just because we love Tolkien's books and we picked the name nearly three years before the first movie came out. But I'm wondering now if she's more likely to run into other girls named Eowyn, with or without the diacretic, and if she's going to bump into a boy named Faramir and have to enjoy the obvious jokes. As long as his name's not Grima, I suppose ...
heroes and villains
The American Film Institute has issued its lists of the top 100 heroes and villains. Interestingly, Atticus Finch is their top hero -- most of the list consists of characters from action movies. What I find most interesting is the juxtaposition of hero and villain, and the stories those placements suggest, such as:
James Bond and Darth Vader
Rick Blaine and the Wicked Witch of the West
Clarice Starling and Mr. Potter
Rocky Balboa and Alex Forrest (who would have my complete sympathy)
Oskar Schindler and Hal 9000
Han Solo and the Alien
Robin Hood and the shark from Jaws
Spartacus and the Terminator
Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, and the Martians
Lassie and Cruella DeVille
Zorro and the Joker
I'm sure there would be other amusing combos if I had seen all the movies in question.
On villains, I have to flat-out disagree with them on No. 7: I do not consider Alex Forrest (Glenn Close's charcter) to be the villain of "Fatal Attraction."
Why do I say that? Because Dan Gallagher (Michael Douglas) used Alex for a one-night stand, a fling. She's also guilty of wrongdoing in that initial encounter -- she had an affair with a married man -- but as evidenced by the next step in the movie, where she tried to continue the relationship, she wasn't looking for one night of sex. Not that the Gallaghers deserved having their bunny roasted or having their daughter abducted, but a great villian needs a good victim, and Dan Gallagher.
Gallagher used her, and in doing so, he exposed his family to tremendous risk. She should be held accountable for her actions, but since she's mentally unstable, she's also not entirely accountable for her actions once she was set off. Note I didn't say Douglas' character is the villain. I just don't think it's entirely fair to say that Alex Forrest is the villainess.
The original ending had Douglas' character shooting Forrest and being charged with murder. It was either one of the actors or the director who objected, and they changed it so that Douglas' wife fires the fatal shot, and it's viewed as an act of self-defense, or at least protecting the home from an invader.
I would have put John Malkovich's character from "In the Line of Fire" up there before Alex Forrest.
James Bond and Darth Vader
Rick Blaine and the Wicked Witch of the West
Clarice Starling and Mr. Potter
Rocky Balboa and Alex Forrest (who would have my complete sympathy)
Oskar Schindler and Hal 9000
Han Solo and the Alien
Robin Hood and the shark from Jaws
Spartacus and the Terminator
Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, and the Martians
Lassie and Cruella DeVille
Zorro and the Joker
I'm sure there would be other amusing combos if I had seen all the movies in question.
On villains, I have to flat-out disagree with them on No. 7: I do not consider Alex Forrest (Glenn Close's charcter) to be the villain of "Fatal Attraction."
Why do I say that? Because Dan Gallagher (Michael Douglas) used Alex for a one-night stand, a fling. She's also guilty of wrongdoing in that initial encounter -- she had an affair with a married man -- but as evidenced by the next step in the movie, where she tried to continue the relationship, she wasn't looking for one night of sex. Not that the Gallaghers deserved having their bunny roasted or having their daughter abducted, but a great villian needs a good victim, and Dan Gallagher.
Gallagher used her, and in doing so, he exposed his family to tremendous risk. She should be held accountable for her actions, but since she's mentally unstable, she's also not entirely accountable for her actions once she was set off. Note I didn't say Douglas' character is the villain. I just don't think it's entirely fair to say that Alex Forrest is the villainess.
The original ending had Douglas' character shooting Forrest and being charged with murder. It was either one of the actors or the director who objected, and they changed it so that Douglas' wife fires the fatal shot, and it's viewed as an act of self-defense, or at least protecting the home from an invader.
I would have put John Malkovich's character from "In the Line of Fire" up there before Alex Forrest.
Tuesday, June 10, 2003
going union
I'm starting to think I really should be considered more liberal than I usually am. Tonight I found myself in the middle of a discussion with three other editors about why — not if, but why — we should form a union in the news room. I've been given the duty of contacting the state Department of Labor to see what our legal options are, as well as some of the ramifications of each approach.
Then we have to go about building consensus. We were trying to determine whom we could approach down the road to get the necessary votes to unionize, and whom would be dangerous to approach. Naturally if the owners or management finds out, there's a good chance we'll either be given our walking papers or strongly encouraged to leave...
*sigh*
Silly me and that whole James 5:1-6 thing...
Then we have to go about building consensus. We were trying to determine whom we could approach down the road to get the necessary votes to unionize, and whom would be dangerous to approach. Naturally if the owners or management finds out, there's a good chance we'll either be given our walking papers or strongly encouraged to leave...
*sigh*
Silly me and that whole James 5:1-6 thing...
Thursday, June 05, 2003
baby names
Back when we were expecting Evangeline, we shared our name choices with our families and received a litany of horrors that would be visited upon our daughter if we gave her such a name.
I actually hung up on my brother during one such discussion because he was being so stinking rude. As a result, we didn't tell anyone the names we picked out when we were pregnant the second time, even though some family members and all our friends had been much more appreciative of the name we gave Evangeline.
The irony of course is that we decided almost right away that if we had a second girl, we were going to name her Rachel Helena, after my paternal and maternal grandmothers -- about as inoffensive a name choice as you can get. What can you possibly find to object to in someone naming a child after his grandparents, especially when they had such traditional names?
I shared the story with two of my friends online, and they both have opted not to tell anyone their name choices either. I must tell my brother that he has ruined it for three families, not just our own.
My younger brother, Ward, actually had been fine with the name Evangeline when we first mentioned it. When I told him that we weren't giving out names for Baby No. 2, he immediately started pleading to be told anyway and found himself extremely frustrated when I refused to budge. Our discussion went like this:
"Is it a Bible name?"
"Well, I guess it depends on your perspective."
"Are you naming the baby after anyone?"
"I suppose that depends on how you look at it."
When Rachel was born last Halloween, I called Ward and told him we had named her "Spock." It took him a little while, but he finally decided I was (probably) pulling his leg, and asked what her name really was.
In retrospect, I wish I had thought to tell everyone a different name when we called to let them know.
(Oh, and of course, true to form, Natasha's grandmother found a way to complain about "Rachel Helena" and what an ugly name it is.)
I actually hung up on my brother during one such discussion because he was being so stinking rude. As a result, we didn't tell anyone the names we picked out when we were pregnant the second time, even though some family members and all our friends had been much more appreciative of the name we gave Evangeline.
The irony of course is that we decided almost right away that if we had a second girl, we were going to name her Rachel Helena, after my paternal and maternal grandmothers -- about as inoffensive a name choice as you can get. What can you possibly find to object to in someone naming a child after his grandparents, especially when they had such traditional names?
I shared the story with two of my friends online, and they both have opted not to tell anyone their name choices either. I must tell my brother that he has ruined it for three families, not just our own.
My younger brother, Ward, actually had been fine with the name Evangeline when we first mentioned it. When I told him that we weren't giving out names for Baby No. 2, he immediately started pleading to be told anyway and found himself extremely frustrated when I refused to budge. Our discussion went like this:
"Is it a Bible name?"
"Well, I guess it depends on your perspective."
"Are you naming the baby after anyone?"
"I suppose that depends on how you look at it."
When Rachel was born last Halloween, I called Ward and told him we had named her "Spock." It took him a little while, but he finally decided I was (probably) pulling his leg, and asked what her name really was.
In retrospect, I wish I had thought to tell everyone a different name when we called to let them know.
(Oh, and of course, true to form, Natasha's grandmother found a way to complain about "Rachel Helena" and what an ugly name it is.)
Tuesday, June 03, 2003
jayson blair
What it boils down to is this:
The editors at The New York Times should never have promoted Blair to the position he was in with the track record he had. Period. Blair falsified expense vouchers, regularly turned in inaccurate and poorly written copy and was still promoted to one higher beat after another.
Utterly disgraceful.
The editors at The New York Times should never have promoted Blair to the position he was in with the track record he had. Period. Blair falsified expense vouchers, regularly turned in inaccurate and poorly written copy and was still promoted to one higher beat after another.
Utterly disgraceful.
mythology
As long as I can remember, I've been reading ancient stories about humanity's distant origins and our relationship with the gods.
I started in ancient Europe, but I've traveled North to lands of frost and ice giants; and I've journeyed south, to where the Nile flows and floods. I've traversed the seas in long canoes guided by Maui, and listened to the tales of Mȃth as sung by Celtic bards. I've drawn swords with Arthur and fought the devil in Brazil. I've seen floods caused by gods distressed at humanity's wickedness or tired out by all their noise and once by a monkey who pulled a cork from a bottle.
I love mythology.
It started back when I was a kid. The elementary school had a large yellow book of D'Aulaires' "Book Greek Myths" that I probably checked out more than any other volume while I was a student there.
The most important stories to the ancient Greeks were Homer's poems about Troy and Odysseus, but the bulk of the myths the D'Aulaires told came from writers other than Homer, who told tales about the Argo, about Heracles and Theseus and Orpheus, with the result that "The Iliad" and "The Odyssey" feel like afterthoughts to me. They're the Greek myths I'm least familiar with.
I got turned on to Norse mythology through Marvel Comics and its superhero Thor, particularly when Walt Simonson wrote and illustrated the comic in the mid-1980s. He was on the title for about five years, and wrapped his entire run around the mythic Ragnarok, the Twilight of the Gods where the Nine Worlds perish in flame.
Simonson had a deep passion for Norse myth that redefined the series. I think he's also a Christian, or at least is very familiar with Christian thought, based on the ways he reinterpreted some of the myths and Thor in particular.
One of these days I want to get a translation of the Elder Edda, since that's our only source of Norse mythology outside the comics.
I've read some Egyptian mythology, but since their cycle of mythology was thousands of years old, I can't even pretend to have more than a passing familiarity with it. It was also years ago. The only Celtic myths I've read are contained in "The Mabinogion," and my interest in that primarily is due to its contributions to the Arthurian cycle of literature.
Polynesian myths also are interesting. I have a collection of Maori myths compiled by Anthony Alpers that I picked up while I was living in New Zealand. It features Maui, a trickster similar to the Coyote of American Indian lore.
The little American Indian mythology I've been able to pick up has been snippets here and there, since it really wasn't in vogue to teach back in the 1970s, when I was in elementary school.
On the other hand, I did manage to find and devour a book on Latin American mythology when I was in high school, and got to read the myths of the Incans, Aztecs and Mayans. It was interesting, although I'm afraid I don't recall much of it.
What was striking was that the Mayans appeared to have had contact with Christian missionaries before the Europeans officially arrived, based on the Christian symbolism and motifs already found in their myths, such as the Devil and the use of the cross as a holy symbol.
I don't know much about Celtic myths, but I heartily recommend "The Mabinogion." It's a collection of Welsh tales with names many fruit-smoothie people have tried to appropriate, such as Rhiannon, Annwn and the horned god whose name escapes me at the moment, but it's still interesting reading.
The myths about Mȃth and Gwydion gradually give way to some of the oldest known Arthurian legends we have, old to the point you're not likely to recognize the names of most of his knights and companions unless you're already familiar with the cycle of literature. "Cei" is relatively easy to figure out (because it's also spelled Cai, which suggests Sir Kay the sensechal, and he acts as boorish), but there are others like Gwalchavad, Gwalchmei, Peredur and Bedwyr that aren't as easy.
These are some of the storis that have enthralled, shaped and defined me for a season or for longer. As God is my witness, they are stories that my daughters will know too.
I started in ancient Europe, but I've traveled North to lands of frost and ice giants; and I've journeyed south, to where the Nile flows and floods. I've traversed the seas in long canoes guided by Maui, and listened to the tales of Mȃth as sung by Celtic bards. I've drawn swords with Arthur and fought the devil in Brazil. I've seen floods caused by gods distressed at humanity's wickedness or tired out by all their noise and once by a monkey who pulled a cork from a bottle.
I love mythology.
The most important stories to the ancient Greeks were Homer's poems about Troy and Odysseus, but the bulk of the myths the D'Aulaires told came from writers other than Homer, who told tales about the Argo, about Heracles and Theseus and Orpheus, with the result that "The Iliad" and "The Odyssey" feel like afterthoughts to me. They're the Greek myths I'm least familiar with.
I got turned on to Norse mythology through Marvel Comics and its superhero Thor, particularly when Walt Simonson wrote and illustrated the comic in the mid-1980s. He was on the title for about five years, and wrapped his entire run around the mythic Ragnarok, the Twilight of the Gods where the Nine Worlds perish in flame.
Simonson had a deep passion for Norse myth that redefined the series. I think he's also a Christian, or at least is very familiar with Christian thought, based on the ways he reinterpreted some of the myths and Thor in particular.
One of these days I want to get a translation of the Elder Edda, since that's our only source of Norse mythology outside the comics.
I've read some Egyptian mythology, but since their cycle of mythology was thousands of years old, I can't even pretend to have more than a passing familiarity with it. It was also years ago. The only Celtic myths I've read are contained in "The Mabinogion," and my interest in that primarily is due to its contributions to the Arthurian cycle of literature.
Polynesian myths also are interesting. I have a collection of Maori myths compiled by Anthony Alpers that I picked up while I was living in New Zealand. It features Maui, a trickster similar to the Coyote of American Indian lore.
The little American Indian mythology I've been able to pick up has been snippets here and there, since it really wasn't in vogue to teach back in the 1970s, when I was in elementary school.
On the other hand, I did manage to find and devour a book on Latin American mythology when I was in high school, and got to read the myths of the Incans, Aztecs and Mayans. It was interesting, although I'm afraid I don't recall much of it.
What was striking was that the Mayans appeared to have had contact with Christian missionaries before the Europeans officially arrived, based on the Christian symbolism and motifs already found in their myths, such as the Devil and the use of the cross as a holy symbol.
I don't know much about Celtic myths, but I heartily recommend "The Mabinogion." It's a collection of Welsh tales with names many fruit-smoothie people have tried to appropriate, such as Rhiannon, Annwn and the horned god whose name escapes me at the moment, but it's still interesting reading.
The myths about Mȃth and Gwydion gradually give way to some of the oldest known Arthurian legends we have, old to the point you're not likely to recognize the names of most of his knights and companions unless you're already familiar with the cycle of literature. "Cei" is relatively easy to figure out (because it's also spelled Cai, which suggests Sir Kay the sensechal, and he acts as boorish), but there are others like Gwalchavad, Gwalchmei, Peredur and Bedwyr that aren't as easy.
These are some of the storis that have enthralled, shaped and defined me for a season or for longer. As God is my witness, they are stories that my daughters will know too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
