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.
Wednesday, July 30, 2003
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.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
