What I Saw Today

I saw someone encourage divorce

2012-01-26T15:24:00.003-06:00

Context
As referenced in this previous post, I like to read advice columns. I was reading Slate's version, Dear Prudence today, and a woman wrote in asking if it was acceptable to take a lover in light of her husband's brain hemorrhage, which has left him with the mental capacity of an 11-year-old. Prudie said no, it would probably be best to find him an assisted living facility, divorce him, and start a new life. Full column here, if you don't trust my paraphrasing.

Commentary
My snarky response to this situation is: have we become so enamored of writing our own wedding vows that we just leave out the "for better, for worse" part?

Here's my more well-considered response: I have no idea how I would respond in the advice-seeker's situation. Philosophically, though, I believe that although we may be attracted to a set of attributes, like mental capacity, sense of humor, and physical attractiveness, we don't marry those. We marry a person, and abandoning that person in their time of greatest need seems wrong.

Sometimes when my husband feels like he has disappointed me in some way, I'll remind him that I don't love what he does, I love who he is. I think he is alternately reassured and dismayed by this, but that's what he has to work with.

I suppose one might contend that a person is no longer himself after a dramatic cerebral change, but I'm not sure I buy that, either. My mother had middle-stage Alzheimer's before she died, but I have to say I never felt like she wasn't my mom anymore. She remembered less, and she didn't always know who I was, but she was still the same person. Perhaps this is what a soul is, the essential, unalterable part of ourselves. And aren't we supposed to marry our soulmates?

What did you see today?

I read a definition of a term

2012-01-10T18:27:00.010-06:00

Context
I'm reading A History of the End of the World by Jonathan Kirsch. I'm doing this because I'm thinking about attending a seminar on apocalyptic literature given by Dr. Susan Brayford, a professor emeritus at Centenary College, and she mentioned possibly using this book as a jumping off point.

Anyway, this footnote appears fairly early in the text: "The abbreviation B.C.E. (Before the Common Era) is the equivalent of B.C. (Before Christ), and C.E. (Common Era) is the equivalent of A.D. (Anno Domini, or "In the Year of Our Lord"). The abbreviations B.C.E. and C.E. are used by scholars to avoid the theological implications of B.C. and A.D., and I have used them here for the same reason."

Commentary
I don't care much for this book. I find it astonishingly disrespectful of people (like me) who take the Bible seriously and downright dismissive of the author of the book of Revelation. Usually I believe life is too short to read books I don't like, but I'm continuing with this one for two reasons:

1) It's an Interlibrary Loan. Since the library took extra effort to get it for me, I figure I should give extra effort to getting through it.

2) I am actually learning stuff, like how various apocalyptic prophesies in the Bible compare and contrast with each other.

All the above was to let you know I might be predisposed to snarkiness while reading this book. Here are the two thoughts that crossed my mind when I read the definition of B.C.E.:

1) If you're counting time forward and backward from what historic calendar makers considered to be Jesus's birthdate, calling it something different may avoid the theological implications of that, but the cultural ones are still glaringly obvious: there was some kind of history-changing event 2012 years ago.

2) Does the author really think there's anyone reading his book who won't know what B.C.E. means? This is an historical analysis of the impact of Revelation with lots and lots of references. I don't think people are going to pick it up unless they've at least seen one college classroom or done an equivalent amount of reading. And if any of that study has been in the realm of history, they've seen B.C.E. before.

What did you see today?

I saw a list of classroom rules

2011-12-03T14:29:00.012-06:00

Context
There have been papers littered around the park next to my home for a while now, so I decided to go pick them up and dispose of them. Idly looking at some of them, I realized they were schoolwork for a freshman at our local high school, including a long set of rules for a math class. One of the rules was: don't criticize teachers or administrators.

Commentary
I taught high school for a year after I graduated from college, and discipline was my least favorite aspect of the endeavor. Some of that was surely because I don't like being told what to do and therefore don't like telling people what to do. This characteristic of mine is discussed in more detail in this post, if you'd like a blast from the past.

There was more to it than that, though. There was also the idealistic (and who isn't idealistic when they first get out of college) notion that what I was teaching should be interesting enough that the students wouldn't have to be forced to learn it, which is what classroom management sometimes felt like to me. Even then I realized this couldn't possibly be true all the time, and that even I was subject to discipline more than once from my favorite teacher in high school. To this day, though, it still seems like a good goal to keep in front of me when I teach. So if I concede that some classroom rules are necessary, I would like you to return the favor by understanding that the goals behind the rules are an important educational consideration.

A few weeks ago, I read Whatever It Takes by Paul Tough, which is a book about Geoffrey Canada's efforts to rescue kids in Harlem from the poverty cycle. One of the things the Harlem Children's Zone's Baby College tries to teach parents is to not shut their kids up when they ask questions. After all, as Canada puts it, that's what "rich white kids" do all the time, and it gives them an important step up in formal educational settings. This is a struggle for the parents, though, because they want to emphasize good, respectful behavior, which in their eyes includes not pestering people with questions. These goals are in conflict, but I'm foursquare with the Baby College in believing it's better to be smart and annoying than dumb and pleasant. I will confess to having more personal experience with one side of this equation than the other.

I believe that if you're trying to grow smart kids (and I concede this may or may not be the goal of any given educational institution), you have to be understand that all questions in between the poles of completely innocuous (How are you?) and completely obnoxious (Are you always this idiotic?) spring from a void or a conflict within a person. I ask why the sky is blue because I don't know, but also because it is a different color than the grass and because I know the sky is composed of air and air doesn't look blue when it's right in front of me. In other words, I'm trying to make sense of stuff. Answering my question, or at least acknowledging that it's OK to ask it, teaches me that sensemaking is an appropriate thing to do.

The same thing is true of questioning authority, or criticizing it, as the case may be. If someone's beliefs, experience and/or feelings don't mesh well with what they're being told by someone in charge, saying so is a way of making sense of how the world works. I'm not saying this means those in power always have to accommodate what we want or feel, but there's no reason to pretend we don't have those individual needs. That's why the U.S. Constitution protects our right to talk about these conflicts. I guess I'll just be grateful I was reading the rules for a math class instead of a civics one.

What did you see today?

I heard my husband say something wise

2011-11-24T11:50:00.005-06:00

Context
One of ads on the Thanksgiving Day Classic was for the Visa card Super Bowl ticket giveaway. In the ad, they say the Super Bowl is the most epic day in America. My husband Mark said, "No it's not; that's Election Day."

Commentary
Well, Mark said it all, but it's my blog, so I'll just add this: every four years we agree to govern ourselves instead of being governed. Frequently on these occasions, a new party comes into power and no guns are fired, except in what I consider a bizarre form of celebration. This has gone on for over 230 years. If that's not worth giving thanks for, I don't know what is.

What did you hear today?

I saw a writer's bio

2011-11-07T18:19:00.004-06:00

Context
I was looking for more information about the criminal charges filed against a former Penn State football coach. That search led me to this article, which has the following printed at the top as the author's bio:

Jason Whitlock writes about the sports world from every angle, including those other writers can't imagine or muster courage to address. His columns are humorous, thought-provoking, agenda-free, honest and unpredictable.

Commentary
My first question is, have we become so enamored of the idea of personal branding that we think "bio" means "advertisement?" I think of a bio as being something that tells you where a person comes from, perhaps even what he's accomplished up to now, not a description of how awesome he is at present.

Or maybe someone thought it counted as a bio because it's written in the third person. Cynically, I think it was written by Whitlock himself, but I have no evidence one way or the other, because it's not attributed. This, of course, does not help its credibility. Even quote whores put their names on their opinions. By the way, the person at the top of that quote whore list in the link above works for the same parent company as Jason Whitlock, but I digress.

If you're getting the impression I don't believe anything in the "bio," you're correct. I know it's narrow-mindedness on my part, but after reading the bio, I pretty much wrote Whitlock off as a blowhard. Which is kind of sad, because the bio appeared before the article, so his writing didn't even get to speak for itself.

On the other hand, that may have been the bio's author's intent. It seems to me that if you have to say a writer is courageous, insightful and funny before allowing someone to read his work, you're somewhat afraid the reader won't come to those conclusions on her own.

What did you see today?

I saw a billboard

2011-10-26T20:30:00.003-05:00

Context
On my way to work this morning I saw a Lamar billboard with a Christmas theme. Today is October 26th.

Commentary
This billboard bothered me for two reasons. One pertains to what Gregg Easterbrook, author of the wonderful Tuesday Morning Quarterback column for ESPN, calls "Christmas Creep." This is the habit commercial enterprises have of trying to jump start the Christmas season earlier and earlier each year.

I myself refuse to be taken in. During October I celebrate Halloween. The next day I start thinking about Thanksgiving, and only when the last NFL game is completed on that day will I contemplate Christmas. Every holiday deserves its due and I will not have them running over each other!

Quick digression: people often ask me if I'm ready for Christmas. Only if I know them really well do I say what immediately comes to mind: "Ready for the birth of the Savior? Oh, yes!"

The other thing I didn't like about the billboard is that it was a billboard for a billboard company. I understand that everyone feels the need to advertise in order to drum up business, but if Lamar couldn't find anyone interested in using that particular space, why not just take the billboard down? It's not like there aren't 30,000 more of them out there.

What did you see today?

I saw the second response to a change

2011-10-25T17:53:00.006-05:00

Context
I am the system administrator for the integrated library system at my workplace, which is what we use to electronically catalog and circulate items, as well as keep track of patron records. Our vendor for this product is SirsiDynix. Over the years, SirsiDynix has tried to foster a user community by maintaining listservs for individual pieces of their software.

SirsiDynix recently announced the creation a bunch of new listservs, because they've expanded their product line in several new directions. This caused an outcry among users, who wrote to the system administrators listserv (because it is our main method of communication outside of conferences) saying they couldn't possibly keep up with so many new lists and there should be more consolidation. Today, another set of voices emerged talking about the advantages of keeping separated lists for separate products and giving tips to the first group about managing e-mail. I cannot link to any of this correspondence, as these discussions are considered proprietary to SirsiDynix.

Commentary
When the aforementioned people got upset about the new listservs I thought, "Really? Is it that bad?", and waited for cooler heads to prevail. In my opinion, they did; there hasn't been any more back and forth on this issue; just "Oh, this is awful!" then, "No, it isn't; here's why:" and nothing further.

I've noticed this a lot lately. When new information appears, there seem to be two sets of people: reactors, who say the first thing that comes to their heads, often proved hyperbolic or downright erroneous later, and analyzers, who look at what the reactors say and come up with a reasoned response. I'd like to say that the analyzers are the only ones doing anything useful, but looking at the dynamic, I'm not sure that's true. The analyzers need the reactors, because otherwise they won't say anything.

Here's an example: an analyzer might look at the Occupy Wall Street protesters and say, "This is a group of people that is displeased about the direction the country is going; they're not terribly organized, but they seem OK with that; they're generally harmless." The thing is, I never heard anyone say those things about OWS until after I heard people say the protest was going to change everything, the revolution was underway, and the end of the world was at hand. I think analyzers think their well-reasoned viewpoint is the prevailing one, so they don't bother to say anything until the reactors have proved them wrong.

Well, not proved them wrong, exactly. I don't think reactors are more numerous than analyzers, just louder and more obvious at the beginning of a timeline. In fact, I think many reactors turn into analyzers over time. I know I do; my first response to information may be spontaneous and visceral, but after a while I often come to see and express a viewpoint that is more considered and transcendant. I don't think either response is correct per se; there seems to be a yinyang quality at work here that is worth preserving.

What did you see today?

I saw a consultant set up a losing situation

2011-09-22T10:29:00.009-05:00

Context
I work as a volunteer for the ombudsman's program at the Caddo Council on Aging, so today I'm attending a workshop on the validation method of communicating with the disoriented elderly, led by Naomi Feil. Early in the day, she role-played an old woman who was disoriented and nonverbal and asked a volunteer from the audience how she would deal with the situation. No matter what the volunteer did, Feil acted more and more upset.

Commentary
I've seen the situation I described above before, and in fact, I was the victim one time. The consultant in question told me she would be playacting the part of a child, and it was my job to get her dressed to go to the doctor. When every tactic I tried failed, she said I shouldn't have been trying to get her dressed, I should have focused on the ultimate goal of getting me to the doctor. There's a phrase we use to describe this in the education community: it's called "changing the prompt."

Feil didn't change the prompt, but I'm pretty cynical about whether there was anything her volunteer could have done that would have elicited a positive response from the elderly character. I wonder if this is a common technique consultants use to prove their worth, i.e. "You couldn't possibly get out of this kind of predicament yourself; it's a good thing you hired me."

I guess this phenomenoncaptured my interest because I never teach this way. I'm always looking for a way for students to succeed, not fail, and even wfhen they give answers thaf are very far from what I'm expecting, I try to understand their thinking and fit it into the current situation. In Feil's case I found the "setting up to fail" particularly ironic, since the main theme of validation communication is empathizing with older people, being where they're at.

I saw my husband groom my dog

2011-07-28T18:12:00.004-05:00

Context
My husband and I have a golden retriever named Claudia. She is the first long-haired dog we've ever had, and she requires a great deal of grooming, particularly during the summer. This evening as we walked in the house after my husband picked me up from work, I teased Claudia for looking tatty. It was my intention to groom her after I had completed a couple of coming home tasks, but my husband started on her before I had the chance.

Commentary
Analogs to the situation described above happen in my married life all the time: I call attention to a problem and my husband will fix it. I often feel guilty and lazy and a little overbearing at the time, like I'm willing to criticize a situation, but not stepping up to do anything about it. On the other hand, my husband says that one of things he appreciates about me is that I notice stuff he's oblivious to, so apparently I'm pretty good at this opening my eyes and opening my mouth stuff.

I suppose that means I should consider my power of observation a gift, but there's a fine line between calling attention to something that could be done and ordering people around, and I don't want to be on the wrong side of it. Especially since another one of my gifts (or personality flaws, depending on your perspective) is that I really hate it when people tell me what to do.

Of course, if I'm being called in some circumstances to do the thing that drives me up the wall when other people do it, it will certainly help me learn tolerance, won't it? So that's a gift too, if not necessarily a welcome one.

What did you see today?

I heard the Apostles' Creed

2011-07-24T21:12:00.006-05:00

Context
I'm in Houston today, so per my usual custom, I went to worship at Christ the King Lutheran church. I used to be a Lutheran and this is the church I got married in. Lutherans always say a creed at some point during any communion service; today it was the Apostles' Creed. Quakers, on the other hand, are very non-creedal.

Commentary
I think the main reason Quakers are non-creedal is because of the feeling that creeds create an exclusive atmosphere. We're concerned that we would be saying, in essence, "If you don't believe this, you don't belong here."

Lately, when we talk about beliefs at my Quaker meeting, I feel like Friends are saying something beyond just: "We shouldn't have a set creed as a group." We seem to have moved on to: "We shouldn't have any strongly held religious beliefs as individuals, either." This perspective says our beliefs are so often proved spirit-killing and wrong that it is a bad idea to hold them at all. Better to just have faith in God in general and not be married to specific theological ideas.

As I was speaking the Apostles' Creed today, I realized I don't agree. For one thing, I actually believe everything in the Apostles' Creed. I don't think that gives me exclusive access to God, but I'm not going to pretend I don't believe those words just to make others feel comfortable.

Moreover, I don't think I can have faith in God without believing certain things. Here are four that seem pretty bedrock to me:

1) I believe that God is powerful.

2) I believe that the things I see constitute the work of God.

3) I believe that God has suffered.

4) I believe that God will ultimately bring justice to our exceedingly evil world.

Without these beliefs, having faith in God seems pointless to me. At its most primitive level, my trust is predicated on an expected outcome: the redemption of the world. If I believed that the march of history was just going to continue on its current path, I would commit ritual suicide. If I didn't care one way or the other, I wouldn't bother trying to learn about God and serve Him.

What's funny about the current discussion of beliefs in our meeting is that one of the ways we encourage people to discern whether Quakerism would be a good fit for them is to take this quiz at beliefnet.com. Unsurprisingly, most of the questions are about one's beliefs.

What did you hear today?

I saw a guy checking out a girl

2011-06-17T18:29:00.006-05:00

Context
As I was leaving the library for lunch today, a woman came down in the elevator with me and a tweenish girl who appeared to be her daughter. The younger lady was wearing the tiny shorts that are in vogue these days. As we stepped out into the alley behind the library, a gentleman in his twenties or thirties gave the girl a once-over.

Commentary
I thought the gentleman's scrutiny of the young lady was inappropriate for a couple of reasons: she was much younger than him and, as I said, probably walking with her mother. The fact that he was checking out a stranger also came to mind, but realistically, that happens all the time. Driving While Black is the term we use for unwarranted traffic stops based on the color of one's skin; perhaps I'll coin the term Walking While Female to describe the "She's on the street, therefore she's on display for my enjoyment" mentality.

Which brings me to the shorts. Is it the case that someone wearing short shorts is deliberately putting herself on display? Possibly not, because sometimes clothing that happens to be good-looking also happens to be comfortable, functional, and/or mandatory.

On the other hand, it would be silly for me to say ladies young and old don't ever try to attract male attention with their clothing. For myself, I can think of five different things I'm trying/have tried to say by wearing attractive clothing, "attractive" here being defined as smart, stylish, sexy, or some combination of those.

1) "I'm single and looking. If you're a sufficiently attractive, interesting and well-mannered guy, you're welcome to make a romantic or sexual pitch in my direction."

2) "I feel ugly (or some other kind of 'bad') today. You're welcome to pay some attention to me, as it may raise my self-esteem, but I'm not interesting in starting anything."

3) "I feel pretty (or some other kind of 'good') today. If you want to look at me and share in my general positive mood, yay! Anything beyond a look and a smile will be presumptuous, though."

4) "I'm with my husband and I'm dressed this way so he won't be embarrassed to be seen with me. You're welcome to appreciate his impeccable taste in women."

5) "I'm dressed this way FOR my husband. You're not welcome to participate at all."

Unfortunately, my actual clothing doesn't explicitly convey any of these messages, and it's probably not fair to expect guys to be able to discern the correct explanation in the amount of time it takes me to walk by them. However, I would state that it's equally unfair for a guy to assume any one of them, and refuse to give up that assumption when I make my intentions clear. I'm willing to count a little scrutiny as human nature. More than that without encouragement is just plain rude.

What did you see today?

I heard someone talk about complaints

2011-06-15T19:12:00.003-05:00

Context
I'm a long term care visiting volunteer for the Caddo Council on Aging's Ombudsmen Program for nursing homes, so I get to hear a lot of residents' complaints about the facility I visit. Today, I had occasion to discuss these complaints with a staff member, and she expressed her belief that some people will always have something to complain about and will never be satisfied.

Commentary
I just have one quick thing to say about customer service: the fact that someone always has something to complain about doesn't eradicate our obligation to address the complaints.

What did you hear today?

I saw an editorial title

2011-06-12T14:48:00.009-05:00

Context
I read an editorial today in The Shreveport Times on debit card swipe fees. It was entitled Elected Officials Should be on the People's Side and can be found here, at least for now. The Times appears to clean out their archive on a regular basis.

Commentary
So this debit card swipe issue that I've commented on before has some legs. I find this surprising, but maybe that's because although I use my debit card frequently, I never think of myself as being in the majority on any lifestyle issue.

I don't think we need to rehash the legislation again. Instead, I want to talk about the title of the piece: Elected Officials Should be on the People's Side. Since that's a sentiment I think we can all agree on, I have good news for you: elected officials are always on the people's side. It's just a matter of which people.

Well, it's a democracy, right? So they should be on the side of the majority of the people. Sounds reasonable, especially if you modify that to say "a majority of the voters," because that's who politicians need to please in order to keep being elected.

But majority rule is only part of the equation in American government. We also believe in minority rights. That's why I hate it when people say (and legislate as if) the U.S. is a Christian country. Yes, a majority of the adults here self-identify as Christians, but if we call it a Christian country, we're trampling over the rights of the minority of people who don't identify with that religion. Just say we're a country with a lot of Christians and I'll be perfectly happy.

OK then, can we agree, as our editorialist seems to be contending, that elected officials should be on the side of the most downtrodden people? Well, it might be nice, and certainly the Bible says the church should behave that way, but again, we're not a Christian country. Sometimes the government stands on the side of the most powerful people (cynics will say "most of the time") because supporting them is perceived to benefit the nation as a whole. You may think that's a bad idea, but I for one think we gained a lot more from NAFTA than we lost.

Now it's my turn to be cynical. I think when we say elected officials should be on the side of the people, we mean "people like us." I don't feel the need to comment on that (surprise, surprise!); I'm just positing the theory.

Please understand, I think the editorial mentioned above is well written and makes several good arguments, even though I don't hold precisely the same opinion as the person who wrote it. I just think the title is meaningless. We haven't come to the point where robots are taking over, so elected officials are always on the side of the some people somewhere.

What did you see today?

I saw a call for experts

2011-06-10T18:15:00.013-05:00

Context
An e-mail list I subscribe to called HARO (what this stands for and more details here) is supported by ads. One of today's ads came from an internet media company. They were looking for experts in various fields to star in podcasts distributed to a number of their websites. I'm not providing a lot of detail because the terms of service on HARO say I can't reproduce the contents of the e-mails elsewhere without their express permission.

Commentary
One of the reasons I joined the HARO list is because they say something I believe: everyone is an expert on something. When I read the ad today, I thought, "I could provide an expert opinion on a couple of topics, like customer service or writing."

On the other hand, I don't have an expert's credentials in either of these fields. I'm interested in both and believe I have useful things to say, but does that make me a credible source? Maybe I'm just someone with an ax to grind and a fondness for hearing myself talk. OK, no "maybe" about that, but you get my point.

In fact, it's even hard to say if people who do have credentials are credible. I recently borrowed a book called Wrong: Why experts keep failing us - and how to know when not to trust them from the Jefferson Parish Library. Even though I haven't started it yet, I doubt it's lacking in examples of experts failing us.

So how does one know what to believe? I try to use a three-pronged approach:

1) What are the credentials behind the theory? Credentials are far from infallible, but for a starting point, I find the CDC more believable than an actress on the topic of vaccines. Also, credentials imply commitment to me, someone who considered the subject important enough to jump through what may seem like meaningless hoops to the rest of the world because he/she really wanted to arrive at the correct answer.

2) How does this theory fit in with what I already know? I may be an expert on nothing else, but I do know my own mind. Too much reliance on it means I only listen to people who support my prejudices, but too little and I end up unmoored and unable to tell anyone why I've chosen one course over another.

3) Does this mode of thinking yield good results? In almost all cases, only time will tell on this one, but once time has told, I don't get to rely on #1 and #2 to override the evidence before me.

#3 makes me believe flexibility is the key to untangling the expertise knot. If you follow an expert of any stripe for just as long as her/his approach yields good results and no further, I think your rate of failure will be quite manageable indeed.

What did you see today?

I saw a driver slow down

2011-06-04T13:39:00.008-05:00

Context
When I drive to Texarkana on Saturdays to attend my Quaker meeting, I usually obey the posted speed limit. Since a great deal of my trip takes place on a two-lane highway, this means when people pass me, they then pull in front of me.

A gentleman driving an older sedan with cracks in the windshield did this today. Shortly thereafter we came upon three vehicles on the opposite shoulder, one of which belonged to the Caddo Parish Sheriff's office and had its lights flashing. Louisiana law requires us to move over or slow down for vehicles with flashing lights on our own shoulder, but there are no obligations pertaining to vehicles on the opposite side. Nevertheless, the guy who had just passed me slowed down considerably, even going a few MPH under the speed limit. I was tempted to pass him, but restrained myself.

Commentary
My first reaction to the driver slowing down ahead of me was, "My driving decisions make my life easier." Consider: except for the "move over or slow down" rule mentioned above, I never have to change how I'm driving when I see a member of law enforcement. Other people have to make numerous adjustments.

Not that my method is entirely stress-free. When people pass me on the two-lane, they sometimes express annoyance, and I'm not completely immune to that. Nonetheless, I'd have to say my method of driving is the one that brings me the most peace.

Making all our decisions according to which ones will bring us the most peace is not a bad way to go, although it is complicated by the need to predict how we'll feel in the future on a regular basis. If nothing else, we can evaluate our current path to see if it's bringing us peace and make adjustments accordingly. Who knows? Doing this often enough might improve our powers of prediction.

So what do we define as peace? I'll admit that for me it has the air of "I know it when I feel it," but I'll try to be more definite. I think we can all agree that peace is not worry or stress or guilt, but I would venture to say it's not necessarily happiness or satisfaction, either. As mentioned previously, I often get a great deal of visceral satisfaction when I do the wrong thing. There's always psychic damage to clean up afterwards, though.

Absence of conflict is a reasonably good definition of peace, but it depends on how you define conflict (wheels within wheels!). I often find that making a good decision for me causes opposition from other people. What really tears me up is when I make the right choice for myself and someone else makes the right choice for her/himself and we still end up in conflict! These disputes can usually be resolved by recognizing our differing needs and perspectives, but still!

I also can't really say that making good decisions means I won't be conflicted about them. Change, even good change, is often very stressful. However, I usually find that once I've made my initial commitment and taken the first few steps, most of the strain falls away. Peace manifests in the feeling that a way is opening up for me.

If peace is the revelation of a path we can follow, then I have to say that neither complacency nor resignation fits the bill. Complacency does its level best to never move at all, and resignation implies that one is not deciding where to go. I do, however, have to leave room for the radical resignation that says, "I'm giving up everything to follow God's will."

There, I did it. Stuck God into the middle of a perfectly good (psychological? philosophical?) treatise. I can't help it, though. For me, even seeking peace is related to my religious beliefs that there is a God, that He cares about me, and that He has a plan. When I say "a way is opening up," I mean God's way. Realistically, I don't believe it's actually possible for us to thwart God's will. On the other hand, I think we can cause ourselves a lot of stress and worry by trying to.

What did you see today?

I heard an acquaintance disagree with me

2011-05-28T19:36:00.005-05:00

Context
Colleagues of my husband's are expecting a baby in August, so we went to a shower for them today. In the course of talking with the man of the couple, I had two disagreements with him strong enough that I felt the need to walk away rather than say something ugly.

Commentary
I like to argue, or at least, I like to debate issues. I'm one of those people who will say things I don't even believe just to make sure the person I'm talking with is considering all possible viewpoints.

For me, the ideal person to debate with is someone who is either equally powerful to me or more powerful in the current situation, because I don't want to oppress someone with my argumentativeness. I also want the person to have an intellect I respect, because then I feel like I can incorporate their reasoning into my future understanding of the issue.

So I'm distressed at a trait I've recently discovered in myself when I'm talking with a person I consider reasonably intelligent. If we disagree about something important to me, there's a good chance I'll reassess the other person's intelligence, rather than my opinion. It doesn't happen all the time, but it feels like an extra inappropriate hurdle I'm making people get over before I'll listen to them respectfully.

What did you hear today?

I heard a child yelling

2011-05-23T20:32:00.005-05:00

Context
My house is adjacent to a city park, and as such I get to hear a lot of what goes on out there. Today I heard a child yelling in the park, and as often happens, I couldn't tell if he/she was in distress and if so, whether that distress required my attention. I let it slide and continued on my way to the dry cleaners.

Commentary
For various reasons, not the least because I used to be a Girl Scout and I have my Emergency Preparedness pin, I'm usually quite willing to jump into emergency situations. Car wreck? I'm calling 911, directing traffic, and holding the victim's hand (not at the same time). Turtle crossing the road? I'm jumping out of my car and carrying him across. Hey, you define "emergency" your way; I'll define it mine.

On the other hand, over time I've become much more cautious about getting involved in volatile interpersonal interactions, which are usually what's going on if I hear one person yelling in the park. If someone falls off the slide, I'll usually hear several people yelling, so I know to run out there. But one voice gives me pause.

As I said, this has happened over time. I used to interpose myself in personal conflicts with great glee, confident that I knew exactly what to do. This has changed for several reasons:

1) I'm a religious pacifist now. At one time I was perfectly willing to counter a violent act with one of my own, or at least threaten to. That tool is no longer in my repertoire.

2) I'm very unwilling to give unsolicited advice these days. Partially this is because I hate when people offer it to me, but it's also because I often don't believe it's effective. When someone is having a screaming match with their spouse, I'm don't think they're in a place where they can hear me say they're behaving badly.

3) I'm no longer as convinced of my own righteousness. When someone's drowning, you throw them a rope, of course. But when a mother is smacking her child, and I've experienced this, she has just as much right to tell me I have no idea what her life and her child are like as I do to tell her that corporal punishment is wrong. Neither of us is wrong.

So I stay out of a lot more situations, but I don't like that solution, either. It seems cowardly and apathetic. Lately I've been trying standing near people who are in conflict and watching silently, in hopes of giving a "I'm here, I see, I'm part of what you need to consider" vibe. So I'm opening my eyes but not, unless asked, my mouth. Is that enough?

What did you hear today?

I heard a question

2011-05-14T14:29:00.009-05:00

Context
At my Quaker meeting today, we discussed this article about the Bible by Kristin Swenson. One of the regular attenders at the meeting has neither a strong interest nor a strong background in the Bible, so she asked what we thought the Bible was for. I said the Bible was for religious instruction. It has pretty good poetry, although it's probably better in the original Greek; reasonable history, especially if you're interested in the various kings of Israel, and some great philosophy. I also said it makes a poor science textbook. Someone at the table said this last would be a radical idea to the Texas Board of Education, because over the past few years, Texas has been embroiled in a debate about how to treat the theory of evolution in science textbooks.

Commentary
I need to start with some housekeeping. The link for Kristin Swenson's article goes to the Deseret News instead of the Shreveport Times, because the latter's archive didn't make it appear in a search. I'm sure they'll rue the day they lost the huge amount of traffic that comes from my blog!

Also, I try to be accurate in the Context portion of the blog, so I reported my comment that the poetry was better in the Greek. Upon further review, I should have said, "in the original language," because very little of the poetry in the Bible was originally written in Greek.

Lastly, I posted the most recent article I could find about the Texas textbook controversy, but if you do a Google search for Texas Board of Education creationism, you'll find all kinds of other goodies.

OK, now the actual commentary. Scientists don't like it when school boards put "all sides of scientific theories" language in textbook standards, because they think it's code for "take potshots at the theory of evolution." It may very well be, but the testimony on integrity (that again!) won't permit me to say so without positive proof.

So I won't deal with that issue. Instead, I'll talk about why the Bible itself, not any creationist-leaning textbook, makes a poor resource for scientific learning. The purpose of science books, and science classes for that matter, is to make observations about the world around us, come up with a plausible explanations for it, and ideally, teach people to do the same.

The Bible is terrible at this. In general, it jumps straight to conclusions without offering any physical evidence for them. I see no "We conclude God created the world in seven days because of this, this, and this" in Genesis; do you? Luckily, assertions about the nature of the physical world are kind of rare in the Bible; it's mostly about setting up a belief system and acting upon it. And to be fair, science textbooks are as bad as religious instruction as the Bible is at science.

Science is tethered to the realm of the possible. This is problematic for religion (at least my religion) in two ways:

1) Faith takes us outside the realm of what's physically possible. The Bible asserts that people can rise from the dead (2 Kings 4:32-37), that men can be thrown into a furnace and come out unharmed(Daniel 3:19-28), and that there will come a time when wolves lie down with lambs (Isaiah 11:6-8), and that's just in the Old Testament. The New Testament really goes berserk. Science can bring awe and wonder, but only faith sets us free from the tyranny of our lives to see new, unimagined possibilities. I recognize the irony of using that word, but whatcha gonna do?

2) Science makes no distinction between the possible and the desirable. Observable phenomena tell us that splitting atoms can cause horrific destruction. Science, in its purest form, has no opinion about whether this is a good or bad thing. Pretty much all religious thought comes down firmly on one side of the issue.

So science and religion have different purposes and places in our lives. Is that really such a radical idea?

What did you hear today?

I heard someone apologize

2011-05-14T14:21:00.005-05:00

Context
In a meeting today, the director of my library apologized for an administrative failure. After he did so, I heard a couple of people behind me murmuring things like, “Don’t apologize!” and “This was going on long before he got here.”

Commentary
This is actually my entry for 5/12/10, but Blogger was down that day.

I’m a strong believer in the Quaker testimony on integrity. Your “yes” should be a yes, and your “no,” a no. People ought to be able to believe in what you say.

A consequence of this is I get annoyed if people don’t believe what I say. If I say I’m sorry, I’m not trying to smooth things over or gain sympathy; I did wrong and I want to express regret about it. Moreover, I think that minimizing my apology minimizes my autonomy, implying that I'm not really responsible for the things I do. I feel it's only fair to warn you: you don't want to get between me and my autonomy.

I also tend to take a transactional view of human interactions. I say, "Thank you;" you say, "You're welcome." You ask me if I want something; I say, "No, thank you;" you don't give it to me, and we both go on with our lives.

Brushing off an apology, rather than accepting it, short-circuits the transaction. A person lets me know I've done something wrong, I apologize, then the person says, essentially, "Oh, don't worry about it." Then, what? The transgression just hangs out there forever? Or am I supposed to forget you said anything? Then why did you say anything? I'm trying to take responsibility for the bad thing I did; are you refusing to take responsibility for having brought it up?

I know, I'm reading way too much into something people do to be polite. But that brings us back to the integrity thing again. The stuff you say, complaints, apologies, declarations of affection and gratitude, should not be just empty words, they should mean something. Or don't waste your breath and my time.

What did you see today?

I saw (and heard!) a disappointing webinar

2011-05-10T18:01:00.010-05:00

Context
I attended a free webinar sponsored by the American Library Association today entitled It's All About the Student: How Students Learn and How Online Reference Sources Help. Since I teach computer skills to adults at my library I thought it would be of some use to me and I stuck with it until the end, but I didn't enjoy it much.

Commentary
The first thing I found disappointing about this webinar was that it was not a webinar, at least not in the sense of being in seminar format. The presenters were given time to present and attenders were allowed to ask questions through a chat window, but generally those were answered by a moderator. So it really wasn't the "exchange of ideas" my dictionary says a seminar is supposed to be. It was a set of lectures.

To compound the problem, the lectures themselves didn't engage me. Some of that was because I am not much of an audio learner. Instead, I'm more of a visual-kinesthetic type. There were visual aids (otherwise it would have been a podcast), but because they were PowerPoints I found myself thinking, "I could have just read these slides at my leisure instead of being chained to my desk listening to these people blather on." Or in one case, LISTENING TO THE PERSON READ HER POWERPOINT SLIDES! Are we ever going to cure people of that?

Not that I would have read the slides anyway, because they were mostly sales pitches for the online reference products sold by various companies. I probably should have expected this going in because most of the panel was composed of vendors, but I didn't think it would be quite so blatant.

Which brings me to my main problem with the whole enterprise. The first presenter, a librarian at Harvard, attempted to build a context for what we were going to hear by talking about some learning characteristics of digital natives. I didn't necessarily trust her conclusions, but at least she was speaking in the realm of ideas. After that, it was a series of "Look at these cool bells and whistles!" talks except for the very last vendor, who at least attempted to to talk about the pedagogical reasoning behind his company's offerings. I came away not only disappointed in the webinar, but in our whole educational system if this is how we decide what tools to use.

"Student engagement" is a popular concept in teacher training these days, and I agree that if someone's not paying attention, they're not likely to learn much. I'm concerned that we're confusing condiments for entrees though, trying to get students engaged using cool technology toys and ignoring whether they're actually learning and retaining something in the process.

In the end, though, the webinar was not a total loss for me. I spent some time this afternoon thinking about ways I balance student engagement with discernable learning outcomes in my own classes, and I'll probably do some writing about that topic a little later. I count it as blessing when my generally discontented nature allows me to examine some deeper truths.

What did you see (and hear!) today?

I saw ideas about education

2011-04-08T17:39:00.014-05:00

Context
I'm still reading What Would Google Do? In the section on Google U, Jarvis posits that most useful education is self-motivated and self-directing, so the current educational model of coming to a specific classroom and learning what the teacher tells you is hopelessly outdated. He allows that our schools may have a socialization function as well as an educational one, but he thinks there are plenty of other communities and experiences that could fulfill the same role.

Commentary
OK, now Jarvis has wandered into my field, so I'm bound to get touchy. Actually, I don't want to talk about education per se; I want to dive into that "socialization" thing. It seems to me that when Jarvis looks at it, he thinks of socialization as the process of helping a student find a community, literally giving them a social life in some respect.

However, that's not entirely what we expect out of schooling, especially public schooling, in this country. We don't just want students to find some community to belong to, we want them to specifically belong to the American community. The most obvious example of our attempts to create Americans is the civics class, but there are others. Take science labs. Performing experiments in school tells our kids that they shouldn't just take someone's word for something. Or gym class, where 8-year-olds learn some of the same lessons about discipline and teamwork they would if they attended military boot camp.

In fact, the biggest battles we fight over education in this country are about what "America" is. Are we a Christian people who should be taught about God in the classroom? Are we an egalitarian people who believe everyone should learn together, regardless of skills or background? Is free speech or good discipline a more important characteristic of Americans? General school board meetings are fun, but if you really want to get a lesson in civics, find a way to get yourself on a curriculum or textbook choosing committee. Then you'll really learn what this country is all about, at least in your neighbors' eyes.

Does it make you uncomfortable when I talk about school as indoctrination? That is, in and of itself, an American thing. We pride ourselves on being free, independent, self-deterministic types. And, to be fair, the fact that we debate the issues mentioned above on a regular basis, rather than being dictated to by a small group of people or a time-honored tradition, speaks to how free we are. And also to why debate techniques are frequently taught in American schools.

What did you see today?

I saw an explanation of Google's success

2011-04-06T14:02:00.006-05:00

Context
I'm reading Jeff Jarvis's What Would Google Do? As you might discern from the title, this is a book analyzing Google's business success and suggesting what other businesses could do to emulate them. According to Jarvis, one of Google's chief strength is its ability to leverage communities and their data to deliver outstanding advertising packages.

Commentary
As I told my husband, What Would Google Do? is a palette cleanser after having read Andrew Keen's The Cult of the Amateur: how today's internet is killing our culture. It's funny, before I started I would've sworn I had much more in common with Kenn's viewpoint than Jarvis's, but I found The Cult of the Amateur to be a nearly unreadable elitist screed, while What Would Google Do? is a well-reasoned, thought-provoking treatise.

Not that I agree with all of it. I understand that Google has revolutionized advertising and made it, for perhaps the first time, a viable way to make money off the internet. However, I'd like to point out two things about advertising:

1) It's annoying. In fact, I think I can make a case that Google's famous "Don't be evil" motto is violated every time they run an ad.

2) It's hard to do well. I'm on the internet a lot, because I use it a lot for my work. I see a lot of internet advertising, and most of it is bad. Here's what I define as bad internet advertising:

1) It advertises something I would never buy, like life insurance.

2) If I did ever consider buying the type of product or service advertised, I wouldn't pick this particular one, because the content of the ad seems untrustworthy.

3) The advertiser seems to be trying to distract me from #2 by using cheesy, distracting graphics (shocked babies, dancing women, etc.). Apparently, some of them use sound as well, but my work computer is always muted, so I'm spared that.

The ads that appear on Google itself may fit #1 and #2, but never #3, so I'll give them credit for that. But the prevalence of ads on other sites that do fulfill all three make me question whether "becoming a node for advertising" is the panacea Jarvis seems to think it is.

In fact, it can backfire badly: when I'm on a website, if it has the 1-2-3 punch of bad advertising, there's a good chance I'll think the site itself is disreputable or failing economically even if I like the editorial content. If I decide to not visit anymore, the advertising has hurt the site's long-term bottom line while giving it a short-term injection of cash. Everyone can be harmed by their company they keep. Even Google.

What did you see today?

I saw a blog post about teaching methods

2011-03-09T17:56:00.006-06:00

Context
One of the messages on the Information Literacy Instruction mailing list today referenced this blog post. I encourage you to read it yourself, but here's the quick summary: it's about using a learning cycle consisting of assimilation, accommodation, and organization as a model for library instruction.

Commentary
This is my interpretation of the learning cycle described by Frierson: assimilation is when we receive information, accommodation is how we match up new information to what we already know, and organization is how we decide to use the information. Let me give an example of how this works: I look at my thermometer and assimilate that the temperature outside is 49 degrees Fahrenheit. I accommodate this knowledge by remembering that in the past when it has been 49 degrees, I've been pretty chilly. I organize the information by deciding to wear a coat.

Teaching is often treated as just a process of putting information out there so students can assimilate it. In return, students sometimes bypass accommodation entirely and only organize the information so they can regurgitate it on an exam. Teachers are frustrated because students don't appear to learn; students are frustrated because teachers don't appear to offer anything of lasting value (Where am I ever going to diagram sentences in the real world?).

Early in his teaching career, my husband attended a workshop called Teaching and Learning. He learned all kinds of useful stuff there; I learned for the first time that education is not just about teaching, but about learning as well. In other words, you can be the best teacher in the whole world, but if your students aren't learning, it's a pointless exercise for everyone. This can be terrifying to teachers, because although we have complete control over how we present information, we have no control over how students accommodate it or organize it. The best we can hope for is to accompany them in that process and maybe learn something ourselves.

There's also a time factor. Presenting information generally doesn't take long, whether we talk, or give the students something to read, or even demonstrate a task. However, waiting for each individual student to find existing knowledge in his/her brain to tack the new information to and decide how she/he wants to use it is not only time-consuming, it's unpredictably time-consuming.

A typical response is to say we don't have time to teach that way. I don't buy it. Here is my philosophy about time: we have time to do everything we really want to do. I have a similar philosophy about money, but I won't go into that. Anyway, when it comes to time constraints, I think what we're really saying is we don't have time to do something and . . . "I don't have time to do the dishes tonight" really means "I don't have time to do the dishes tonight and go to bed early so I can get up early tomorrow and not be sleepy." We're setting some priorities, which is reasonable, but it's not the same as having no time to do the dishes.

So why don't we have time to teach in such a way that students will want to learn and be successful doing so? Because what we prioritize more highly is "covering material." Of all the insidious ideas to infiltrate education, this has got to be the worst. OK, I'm not super fond of group work either, but I digress. I don't know how we ever got to a place where we believe it is more important for a teacher to get through a certain number of lessons or concepts or textbook pages than it is for students to actually learn something.

Actually, I'm lying. I know exactly how we got here; it's through mistrust and laziness. We don't trust teachers to teach, so we want to evaluate them. But measuring how much a student has learned, as opposed to how much he/she can remember at test time, is difficult. So we settle for a quantitative measure, like a percentage of right answers, instead of a qualitative one, like how good a student is at formulating worthwhile answers to substantive questions of her/his own devising. But man, that material gets covered!

What did you see today?

I saw an article about banking policy

2011-02-20T11:40:00.010-06:00

Context
I ran across this article in the Shreveport Times this morning about the Federal Reserve and Congress trying to determine the best method for regulating debit card fees, as mandated by last year's financial overhaul bill. The difficulty appears to be in getting merchants and banks to share the pain equitably.

Commentary
As far as I can tell from the article, the banks are saying they shouldn't be limited on how much they charge merchants for debit card swipes because they play an important role in the economic recovery effort and merchants are saying they need a break on these fees because they play an important role in the economic recovery effort. Taking this bait, federal officials seem to be trying to decide which of the two factions' role is more important. I think this approach is wrongheaded because both the merchants and the banks make compelling cases in this regard.

Here's another thing both parties are doing: they're trying desperately to hide these fees from the consumer. The merchants are saying when they pay high debit card swipe fees, they have to either charge customers more for goods, which may lose them customers, or cut their profit margins, which means cutting jobs. Bankers say if they have to cover the costs of fraud protection, etc. themselves, they'll have to eliminate free checking accounts which, you guessed it, may lose them customers. Neither seems to want to say directly to the consumer, "The convenience of using a debit card at the grocery store has a cost; please pay it."

Ellen Ruppel Shell, in her excellent book Cheap: the high cost of discount culture, says this is a common problem in our current culture: we have become so obsessed with "getting a good deal" that no one wants to pay the fair price for anything. Shell mostly talks about how we ignore substandard goods and/or substandard working conditions in order to fuel this overriding need, but I think the paradigm applies to other situations as well.

So I would like to propose that we take the honest approach: the Federal Reserve should determine how much a debit card swipe at a merchant costs and the banks should charge the consumers that amount per swipe. Then we could actually make (Gasp!) informed decisions about whether the convenience is worth that price instead of everybody trying to fool each other about what's going on.

What did you see today?

I saw responses to unwelcome opinions

2011-02-15T10:43:00.012-06:00

Context
Today I saw two similar things in different places. First on PUBLIB, an e-mail list for public librarians, I saw a series of inflammatory posts (one example here, but you can find others if you browse the February entries by the same author, Matthew Price), followed by some equally inflammatory responses and several well-considered ones, including this one by Robert Baillot. Then on Slashdot, I saw another discussion initiated by quoting Glenn Beck in one of his more outrageous moods and evolving into a metadiscussion of how to respond to outrageous opinions. By the way, that last link is a little tricky. You may have to do some collapsing and expanding of comments to see what I'm talking about.

Commentary
Almost since the inception of the internet, people have been using it to exchange opinions. And almost since the start of that activity, there have been trolls, which are defined as people who take an inflammatory stand just for the sake of being inflammatory, not because they actually believe it. The perception is that trolls get off on attention or on getting people upset because they think it makes them superior.

The conventional wisdom about this phenomenon is "Don't feed the trolls," i.e. don't encourage their bad behavior by responding, but I was intrigued by the two responses I saw that seemed to fly in the face of that. "Ephemeriis" takes a civic responsibility approach, saying that since Glenn Beck is taken seriously in some quarters, the opposition is obligated to craft a serious rebuttal. Robert Balliot goes him one better by quoting Aristotle to make the point that every idea deserves consideration, even the rantings of a troll.

These responses are challenging to me. I often believe in operant conditioning, or at least the principle I learned from my mother: "If you ignore someone, he'll go away." But is getting someone to go away really my goal? Or is it engagement, where I continue to grapple with the people who drive me crazy in the belief that the God who loves all of us might be trying to tell me something?

What did you see today?

I saw an unfamiliar medical condition

2011-02-07T18:57:00.007-06:00

Context
I was reading an e-mail from Help a Reporter Out (HARO) today and it referred to a condition known as gluteal amnesia. As mentioned previously, the rules of HARO don't allow me to quote the actual message here. Since I had never heard of gluteal amnesia, I did a quick internet search for it. I saw it mentioned and defined on several sites, but when I sought more information on either WebMD and PubMed, the term was not found.

Commentary
I can't tell you what gluteal amnesia is, because once I found it wasn't mentioned on the two internet sources I consider most authoritative for medical information I was no longer interested in the condition itself. Instead, I came to wonder why a great many people outside the medical establishment wanted to talk so much about it.

I've come up with three possible reasons:

1) Gluteal amnesia doesn't really exist at all and is just a scam started to convince people they have an exotic ailment.

2) Gluteal amnesia is a very real medical problem, but health professionals call it something else.

3) What is labeled gluteal amnesia is a set of symptoms that could point to a variety of other widely recognized medical conditions.

Whichever of these three reasons explains the discrepancy in the discussion of gluteal amnesia (Could we really just be talking about your butt falling asleep?), it must drive physicians up the wall. It may also illustrate, in part, why doctors sometimes hate it when patients get medical information from the web. Think about it: a general practitioner has to keep up with all manner of real medical problems, and then people come in complaining of a problem that doesn't exist. Or does exist, but is called by another name or indicates another type of problem.

It doesn't help in the slightest that there are probably some people who believe in a fourth potential reason for the relative silence about gluteal amnesia: it's a very real, very serious medical condition that the medical establishment doesn't want us to know about for some nefarious reason. So now we have skilled professionals (and, in my experience, generally nice people) being told, "I don't trust what you say because the internet, (where nobody knows you're a dog), says different."

For the record, my doctor often encourages me to look up information on my medical problems on the internet, but that's after she tells me what they are. And it's possible she does that because I'm a librarian and I let her be a doctor.

What did you see today?

I saw an obituary

2011-02-02T21:13:00.004-06:00

Context
As mentioned earlier I got my B.A. from Rice University. I received an alumni e-mail today that contained a link to this media page on the university website, containing obituaries for two young men who died over the winter break. The cause of death was only listed for one of them, Brandon Cook. After a local media search on the other, Dexter Gannon, I learned his death was ruled a suicide.

Commentary
Suicide was a touchy subject while I was at Rice. There was a widely-held perception that at some times in its history, Rice's emphasis on academic achievement had led to an unhealthy hypercompetitiveness and, in its turn, a high suicide rate. During my undergraduate years, the administration sought to fight this trend by keeping both the scholarship standards and the level of emotional support high. They also blocked off student access to the balcony of the bell tower.

So why did they keep mum about the cause of Dexter Gannon's death twenty-five years later? I suppose you could argue that it was to save his loved ones pain, but that seems flimsy, given that his loved ones presumably knew about the coroner's ruling.

Another explanation might be that Rice wanted to save ether the family or itself embarrassment. I find this idea disturbing, as I would like us to get to a point in our culture where we no longer consider mental difficulties shameful.

Regardless, I think it was a bad decision. I don't think covering up the tragic aspects of life really helps anyone. I believe light and air are far better cures for what ails us. After all, the It Gets Better project was started in the wake of gay teen suicides. But we had to talk about the suicides first.

What did you see today?

I saw a description of violence

2011-01-24T19:19:00.005-06:00

Context
I'm reading Our Choice of Gods by Richard Parrish. It's a novel about the roots and consequences of conflict in Palestine, starting with Jewish lives destroyed by the Holocaust, which leads to the Israelis' callousness toward the Palestinians in the Holy Land, which in turn causes the Palestinians to embrace terrorism, and so on and so on. I picked up the book because, although the causes of violence are obvious to me, I was interested to see what would make someone turn the other way and actually embrace peace.

Commentary
When I was in college I came to the conclusion that, popular opinion to the side, men were actually much more romantic than women. "Romantic" in this case meaning they were much more likely to believe in things like love at first sight and eternal soul mates than the women I knew, who talked more about "not losing your head" and "making the relationship work."

"Wow, you've really gone far afield there, Lynn." Bear with me; I'm coming back. Similarly to the way conventional wisdom says women are romantic, it also says pacifists are hopelessly unrealistic in their view of a world where everyone gives each other warm fuzzies all the time. Actually, that's not what I believe as a pacifist, but more importantly, I think the proponents of violence are far more impractical than I am, in that they believe they can harness that wildfire to a particular set of goals.

Consider Palestine. This is an area of the world where two groups of people (well, actually about 500 groups of people, but let's try to keep it simple) hold the following belief: there is some act of violence we can commit that will cause the other group to leave this place and never come back. Over time, some members of both groups have given this belief up, but there is a seemingly endless supply of instigators who pop up and say, "No, no, this time I have a plan that will win us a decisive victory," the evidence of the past 60 years (or the past several thousand, but again, I'm trying to simplify) notwithstanding. How is that more realistic than pacifism, which often says at its base, "I don't respond well to force. Therefore I'm going to assume you don't either."?

What did you see today?

I saw an icon on my desktop

2010-12-16T18:56:00.005-06:00

Context
I was sending material to the consultant who's setting up an intranet for Shreve Memorial today. While I was working, I happened to notice the icon for editing the library's new website that I put on my desktop a few days ago.

Commentary
OK, I know, "Way to put nothing useful in the Context, Lynn!" The reason the juxtaposition above struck me as interesting is that I was not entirely happy about the way either our website or our intranet was set up. Yet here I was, happily contributing to both of them now that they are faits accompli. That's pretty much normal for me; once a decision is made I prefer to deal with the new reality rather than stewing or sulking. I'm not passive-aggressive, in other words. Aggressive-aggressive, but not passive-aggressive.

So does that mean I cave when I lose an argument? Maybe. For me it just means acknowledging the argument is in fact lost, that I can see things not go my way and I don't have to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to reset the universe. Plus it doesn't seem weak to me; it seems empowering. A decision gets made; I don't agree with it; I then get to make my own decision whether to adapt, fight openly, or leave, all of which sound more productive to me than denial or sabotage.

Frankly, sometimes my flexibility in accommodating different viewpoints feels like a great intellectual and/or spiritual achievement to me. And yes, sometimes I go along with a new procedure just so I can be around to see how spectacularly it'll fail. So maybe I'm a little passive-aggressive.

What did you see today?

I saw a description of groupings

2010-11-10T14:46:00.005-06:00

Context
I read Andrew Sullivan's article about the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear on The Atlantic's website today. In it, he mentions that although we have three major political groups in the United States (Republicans, Democrats and Independents), we also have three cultural one (idealogues, pragmatists, and the totally indifferent).

Commentary
At first I thought I liked the idea of cultural groupings as opposed to political ones because I don't really fit comfortably into a Republican, Democratic, or Independent box. I mean, I usually self-identify as Independent, but as Inigo Montoya would say, "I don't think that word means what you think it means."

"Independent" for me does not imply "centrist," but rather "left of Democratic." I often vote Democrat, but I'll be danged if I'll call myself one! And if I'm completely honest, I have to say I'm sometimes to the right of the average Democrat as well, especially when it comes to intellectual freedom.

On the other hand, I don't really belong exclusively to an idealistic, pragmatic or indifferent culture either. I'm generally pragmatic, but when it comes to certain bedrock principles (peace, integrity, equality, simplicity), I can be just as dogmatic as the next person. And there are some political issues I'm not interested in. Local elections in Shreveport often revolve around code enforcement. I try to care, but I really don't.

No, I think what attracts me to the cultural groupings described by Sullivan is not that they describe me better, but that they seem to allow for a lot more flexibility in our political dialogue. Maybe I'm being all too pragmatic, but doesn't it seem like things would go better if we could just acknowledge these different characteristics in each other?

Try this on for size: "Oh, that's an issue that's of deep personal concern to you and my treating it clinically is not helpful. Go ahead and tell me about your passion and I'll listen because I care about you as a person."

Or maybe: "I can see you're not as vested in this problem as I am, so I won't waste time for both of us trying to bring you over to my side."

Even: "No, I wouldn't dream of calling you a RINO because your interests are different from mine. That would be rude."

What did you see today?

I saw another bumper sticker

2010-11-05T16:10:00.010-05:00

Context
I saw another pro-gun ownership bumper sticker today, this one quoting Adolf Hitler in his apparent affinity for gun control. There is both a description of the sticker and evidence refuting its historical accuracy at this link.

Commentary
I have added a gadget to this blog whereby you can easily e-mail, tweet, Google Buzz, Facebook or reblog any entry on it. Maybe I'll become famous. Also, Blogger now says they're using automatic spam control on comments. That makes me a little sad.

Housekeeping aside, I do want to make it clear that I see and read bumper stickers about other issues besides the 2nd Amendment! I wonder if the pro-gun ones capture more of my attention because people are having to make kind of a tricky argument. After all, just saying, "I'm opposed to handgun control because I like to kill people" is kind of a non-starter.

I was disappointed, but not surprised, to see the Hitler quote is likely a fake. Although I find some NRA-type arguments spurious, I'm squarely on the side of those who say the founding fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment so citizens could defend themselves from government. After all, they had just finished separating themselves from an oppressive regime by, well, fighting a war.

I'd like to believe we don't have to worry about defending ourselves in a democracy, but historically that hasn't proven true. After all, most of the acts we complained about in the Declaration of Independence came from the British Parliament, a democratically-elected body. Even Hitler himself rose through the power of the ballot box. And everybody voted in the former Soviet Union.

So I'm sympathetic to the idea that we can't rely on any government to keep us safe or to have our best interests at heart. However, I don't think packing heat is the appropriate response to the situation. After all, if guns are outlawed, people who aren't outlaws might be inclined to come up with more sensible ways to resolve their differences.

What did you see today?

I saw someone not getting the point

2010-11-02T19:26:00.007-05:00

Context
I watcheda portion of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olberman on the web today. I was interested in it because it referenced the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear, an event I really, really wanted to go to but settled for watching on TV. I didn't watch the entire segment, because I think I understood the points Olberman was making early on. The Countdown segment has an edited version of what Jon Stewart had to say at the rally; you can find unedited video here, by scrolling down on the left side to Moment of Sincerity.

Commentary
I think Keith Olberman was trying to say two things in his response to Jon Stewart:

1. "Maybe I should try to tone down the unproductive anger." No argument here. I love the Daily Show in general, but this rally in particular spoke to me, because I believe reason desperately needs to be restored to our national discourse.

Trust me, I am never one to walk away from an argument. But that's because I want my opinion heard and I want to hear its counterpoint. For the same reason, and possibly because of my family background, I cheerfully walk away from shouting matches. No one's getting heard there, which in some ways is OK with me because I'm pretty sure little of value is being said. Or, as Jon Stewart says in the clip referenced above, "If we amplify everything, we hear nothing."

2. "It's not demonizing your opponent if your opponent really is a demon." True enough, Keith, but as I think Jon was trying to explain, this is not applicable to anyone currently active in American politics.

It's funny. Even though the term "reactionary" is supposed to apply to ultra-conservative people, I think the literal definition fits Keith Olberman to a T. His standard MO is to hear an outrageous statement from the right and respond by making an equally outrageous statement. But he would have us believe there is no actual equivalence because he's on the side of truth, justice and the American way and his opponents are prone to sacrificing cute little kittens on the altar of bad journalism.

I don't buy it. I don't think two wrongs make a right, I cannot be convinced that good ends ever justify bad means, and absent seeing horns growing out of their heads or smelling brimstone on their breaths, I refuse to believe that people with values and beliefs that differ from mine are demons. Because that would be insane.

What did you see today?

I saw a printing error

2010-09-19T12:17:00.010-05:00

Context
I was reading this article in the hard copy Shreveport Times today. The print version of the article ended with 'An analysis of the charity's reports to the IRS show contributions have steadily increased over the last three years, reaching nearly $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2009, the most recent for"

Commentary
It appears that the Times didn't allow enough column space for this article, because the version I've linked to not only completes the sentence referenced above, it also contains two more full paragraphs! I remarked to my husband that making a calculation like that should be part of Printing 101. He said the problem was probably that decisions about spacing were left to the printing software. As an information technology worker I said, "Yup, that would be a problem all right."

The information technology department at Shreve Memorial Library is called "Automation." This is a holdover from the time when our main purpose as an organizational unit was converting our card catalog and manual circulation system (Are you old enough to remember when someone had to match a card from a book to a card with your name and put them in a file box together?) to automated objects.

This is an example, and I think a positive one, of how computer systems promote efficiency. However, because of instances like I saw today, I don't think it's a good idea to let computers replace people. When we do, we risk making significant sacrifices, because computers lack judgment and an understanding of nuance.

It seems to me that this was something automobile manufacturers and others learned in the 1980s, when they emphasized that a person could stop an automated assembly line if they saw something wrong. What was interesting about this movement is that it led not only to improved product, but also improved worker morale.

It's not surprising that as creatures with imaginative and subtle brains, we prefer to do work that uses them, not just perform the same tasks over and over again like cogs in a machine. But as consumers we often favor cheap, easy-to-find, or faddish items over high-quality ones. So we make it hard for human labor to be both successful and fulfilling, which I think is a shame.

What did you see today?

I saw a contradiction

2010-08-13T17:53:00.010-05:00

Context
I am currently reading Acres of Diamonds, a speech given by Russell Conwell, the founder of Temple University. I'm reading it in book form, and on page 41, Conwell tells a story about John Jacob Astor's success coming in small part because when he owned a hat shop, he only sold bonnets copied from ones he had seen contented ladies wearing. Then, on page 47, Conwell talks about how important great inventors are in a capitalist society.

Commentary
Acres of Diamonds is a polemic extolling the virtues of making money, almost to the exclusion of all else, so I'm probably predisposed to pick it apart. It was funny though, I read the Astor story and said to myself, "So Conwell is saying innovation is bad." Then I got to page 47 and thought, "Unless it's a successful innovation that makes money. Then he's saying it's good!"

I think this odd juxtaposition struck me harder because earlier this week I was in a two-day workshop where I thought the consultant contradicted herself repeatedly. In fact, there were enough instances that I thought I could develop a pretty good drinking game based on them, but you know how punchy you get at these things.

Anyway, these two sets of circumstances got me thinking about why people contradict themselves and why we as listeners sometimes don't notice. I came up with two reasons:

1) Someone is presenting so much information that contradictions kind of creep in unnoticed. I think this is applicable not only to Conwell, who seemed to want to say everything good about capitalism at once and the consultant, who was trying to fit a great deal of material about library planning into two days, but also the world in general these days, where so much information is available that it's hard to take a moment and realize that "A" cannot exist in the same universe as "B." I think we should pay attention if this is happening, and you can count on The Daily Show to point out as many of them as they can get their hands on, but morally the phenomenon is pretty benign.

2) Someone is so intent on making a point that they will use whatever arguments are at hand, even if they make no logical sense. This is not so benign and nearly impossible to combat. It is the argument that starts with, "We know President Obama is not a citizen because he can't produce a birth certificate," then decides to cover all bases with, "The birth certificate President Obama has showed people is falsified."

My concerns about #2 are, I think, why I'm picky about internal contradictions in a presentation. If you're trying to convince me of something, I want all your arguments to line up and make sense. Otherwise, I just think you're trying to sell me something.

What did you see today?

I saw people protesting

2010-07-31T14:51:00.006-05:00

Context
I had a dream this morning where I was participating in some kind of multi-day animal-related activity. I couldn't tell you what because it was a dream, but when I looked outside the fence of the facility we were meeting in, I saw some people holding picket signs saying things along the lines of "Animals are not servants!" "Free the beasts!", etc. I walked up to the fence so I could get a closer look, and two dogs belonging to one of the protesters came up to me, so I started petting them and talking to them. Later, when I came out to have the barbecue dinner that was scheduled for that night, I saw that the protesters had dispersed and I was glad.

Commentary
I used to have a difficult time describing my position on animal issues, but I think I now have a phrase that makes the appropriate distinctions. I am an animal welfare activist, not an animal rights activist. To summarize, this means that I think human beings ought to be good stewards of the animals in our care, particularly domesticated ones, and that I think the people in PETA are nutcases. Refining my position further, I'll say that animal rights activists get upset about things that I think are positive, like training dogs to do service work. In fact, I think that may have been what was going on in my dream, but I can't say for sure.

I have been known to engage in formal protests, but as I grow older I find myself doing it less and less. There was a pivotal event in my life about twenty years ago that helped me see demonstrations differently. I was living in Oakland at the time, and there was some kind of political dispute going on over People's Park in Berkeley that had grown violent. As is pretty normal for me, I was on the "left" side of the dispute. Twenty years serving about the same purpose as an unconscious state, I don't remember at all the reason for the conflict.

Anyway, one day I decided I needed to go down to the Park and get involved in what was going on. I probably had a plan for what to do, and it probably involved confronting law enforcement, but when I got to downtown Berkeley, I found myself just walking around and watching what was going on. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this "seeing" thing has been going on with me for a long time. And, as I described it to my husband later, all I could see were people. No bad guys, no good guys, just people.

So I came home and thought twice about participating in protests after that. I'm not saying that being in a demonstration requires demonizing the opposition. I'm saying that hanging out with a large, or a small-but-committed, group of people that agrees with you makes it more likely you will think it's irrational to disagree with you. And that's an opinion I never want to hold.

I believe the people in my dream were surprised I was petting their dogs. They had a vision of who I was because I was participating in this event, and the vision included "hates animals." I'd like to think that they stopped their protest because they saw that the truth wasn't so black and white. Perhaps it's arrogant to think that my actions could change people's minds so quickly, but it's my dream; I can say what I want!

I'm moved by this because I've been having some other dreams lately where I get angry when someone violates a closely-held belief of mine, and my expressions of anger never accomplish any good end. This latest dip into my subconscious let me see the other side: when I emphasize relationships over principles (I could've just ignored the protesters and gone about my business), good things happen.

This is what occurred to me when I woke from my dream: God doesn't love principles; God loves people. The Bible doesn't actually say that anywhere, but I can't draw any other reasonable conclusions from the contradictory threads of Jesus' life and ministry. Specifically, I think that's what he meant when He said the Sabbath was made for people, not the other way around. Principles are not bad, any more that sincerely-intended political protests are. You just can't let them get in the way of the important stuff.

What did you see today?

I saw myself get angry

2010-07-27T21:53:00.004-05:00

Context
My husband and I are traveling back from a vacation in Richmond on the Amtrak Crescent. A little before 4:00, the hostess from the dining car came around to inform us that dinner would be served at 4:30. We thought this was silly for a couple of reasons, including the fact that the train was running late. We tried to express this to her, but she appeared to be "on script" and not interested in what we were saying. I got angry, and after she left I told my husband I didn't want dinner because I didn't want to have to deal with her. She apparently heard me, because she came back to our bedroom to try to explain the situation again, but I blew her off. After some discussion with my husband, I went to the dining car (at 4:30!) and apologized to her for complaining behind her back.

Commentary
Really? The context wasn't painful enough, you want commentary? OK, here are some random thoughts:

I really do love train travel, but this particular trip has had its hiccups.

My husband is my conscience a great deal of the time.

I've had several obvious "message from God" dreams lately and at first I interpreted them as pertaining to hospitality. The more I consider them, however, the more I realize they're about anger and they come with a bright neon message: anger throws up a barrier between me and my basic beliefs about what's important, like hospitality and building relationships through good communication.

What did you see today?

I saw an article about incentives

2010-07-08T17:47:00.014-05:00

Context
Duplicate issues of magazines the library receives are kept in the staff lounge. The April 19th edition of Time, had a cover story about the results of and reactions to a series of economics experiments giving cash incentives to students in public schools. Read the article here, if you like.

What I read of the article discussed the scientific rigor behind the experiments, conducted by Roland Fryer, Jr. of Harvard, and their varied results. It also pointed that many people really disliked the idea that they were being conducted at all. Educators in particular wanted students to develop a love of learning, not constantly have a hand out for tangible rewards. On the other hand, the writer for Time said, "most adults work primarily for money, and in a curious way, we seem to be holding kids to a higher standard than we hold ourselves." I stopped reading at that point.

Commentary
Just to kick things off, I'd like to give kudos to Time for their online archive. It is remarkably easy to find and use, and that's something librarians care deeply about.

I didn't stop reading the article because I was disgusted with the subject matter; I found it fascinating. Too fascinating, because as soon as I got to the "most adults work primarily for money" line I had to stop and think about incentives in my own life for a good ten to fifteen minutes.

Money almost never works as an incentive to me. I have taken jobs in the past just to pay the bills, but you could have given me million-dollar bonuses and I still wouldn't have done them particularly well or with any enthusiasm. In fact, my dad gave me cash for good grades a couple of times when I was in high school, and although I didn't turn them down, my internal attitude was pretty much "Yeah, whatever."

The good opinion of others works, but only from people I respect, and there aren't a whole lot of those on the planet. With the distance of years I've developed some real sympathy for people whom I didn't care for who were trying to get me to do stuff. Even when they went the punishment route, as some educators did, they found that in my perverse way I usually considered that a badge of honor.

I remember love of learning being an incentive for me, especially when I first entered school and, ironically enough, when I went to grad school in my mid-thirties. But I also remember that throughout my educational career I put special effort into any assignment I considered interesting or worthy of my talents. And I'd be willing to bet that's true of most people. The problem is, it's a moving target; what's interesting to me is deadly dull to others (Shall I talk to you about controlled vocabularies again?). And of course, my talents are different from yours.

I still believe it's a goal worth pursuing. In fact, in human resources and training materials I often read about the need to personalize rewards to the individual worker's values and goals, rather than taking a one-type-fits-all approach. So if we're going to adopt a business-type model for education, I'd rather we go with that one. And if money is what works for some students (sigh!), then why not start handing it out, if only to help them see that their individual opinions have worth? As Dr. Fryer says, let's try "treat[ing] kids not as inanimate objects but as human beings who behave in interesting ways."

What did you see today?

I saw a comment on social standing

2010-07-02T17:45:00.011-05:00

Context
It is often the case that when I want to understand a problem better, I find a book on the topic. So now I'm in the middle of reading a book by Hilde Bruch called Conversations with Anorexics. This is a quote I read today: "Paula then went into much detail about the pain of growing up in a small town where she felt not recognized as belonging to a leading family."

Commentary
I grew up in one of the biggest cities in the world. And in a very small town. Let me explain: my family moved to Mexico City when I was eight years old, but because we're Americans most of our social interactions took place within the sizable-for-what-it-is, but still small, English-speaking community.

So my view of my place in the community during those years was different from what it would have been if I'd grown up in the country of my birth where nearly everyone spoke the same language I did. Here's an example: I went to the American School, an expensive, private, college-prep school, which my father's employer paid for as an incentive to accept a foreign assignment. While there, I socialized with the children of diplomats, high-level Mexican government officials (the college prep applied to both U.S. and Mexican institutions), missionaries, and others. These are the kind of people I would have never encountered at the public school a mile away from our family's home in Michigan.

The thing is, at the American School we didn't arrange ourselves according to the social strata our parents belonged to. This may be typical of kids thrown together everywhere, but we used kid standards (athletic prowess, physical beauty, what passes for sophistication when you're twelve, etc.) for status, not adult ones. I went out on a date with the son of the Mexican Secretary of Tourism one time. He was as low on the socially awkward totem pole as I was. On the other hand, there were girls in my social circle who used to belittle my ineptness all the time. It was only with time that I discovered two important realities:

1) My dad was their dad's boss.

2) I was going on to college. They were going back to rural Michigan to get married and have babies.

I am very grateful to my parents for the opportunity to grow up this way. I still feel a little out of place in my native culture (Why oh why don't you people kiss each other to say "Hello"?), but I think it gave me a good perspective on the malleability of social structure and an ability to be comfortable in my own skin under almost any circumstances. And I speak Spanish reasonably well.

¿ Que ha visto usted hoy?

I saw an underweight coworker

2010-06-30T18:54:00.007-05:00

Context
One of my coworkers at the library was overweight when he first got his job. He then went on the paleolithic diet. He got down to a healthy weight and kept on going, so now he is too thin for his large frame. My relationship with this young man is cordial but not close.

Commentary
Actually, "cordial but not close" is pretty much what I go for in all my relationships. I mean, I'm married and I have family and a couple of close friends, but in general I don't bond tightly with other human beings.

And therein lies a problem. I'm concerned about my coworker. He may be ill, but given his personality (he strikes me as someone who sees things very much in black and white) I'm concerned he may be anorexic. But I'm nowhere near close enough to him to ask him about it.

Closeness is not the only issue. Current etiquette dictates that we don't make casual comments on appearance in the workplace, as doing so risks a charge of unprofessionalism or outright harassment. And in society at large we generally don't talk about a person's weight at all. Remember, the only time you should ask a woman if she's pregnant is when you see a baby emerging from her womb. I guess the reason behind this is that we are expected to be hypersensitive about our weight, and if my coworker really does have an eating disorder the last thing I want to do is promote hypersensitivity.

But is the only alternative to say nothing at all? To, in fact, have my eyes open and not open my mouth? Or do I have to take the long way around and get closer to him and then express concern? This loving thy neighbor stuff is hard!

What did you see today?

I saw a review of a book

2010-06-25T15:20:00.010-05:00

Context
One of the tasks I perform at my library is looking over the new book lists in our catalog to make sure the items are displaying properly. Our catalog contains reviews of some items and sometimes I read those, even though it's not a necessary component of the task.

This is a quote I read today from the Library Journal review of Lynette Eason's Too Close to Home: "Readers who enjoy romantic suspense authors Suzanne Brockmann and Sandra Brown but who prefer their thrills with a little more conscience and a lot less sex will be thrilled with Eason's new series opener." Eason is classified as a Christian suspense author.

Commentary
I have been neglecting my calling. And as often happens with backsliding, I didn't realize it for a long time. I haven't posted to this blog for two and a half months, not because I haven't been seeing anything (I always see stuff), but because I didn't think I needed to say anything about it.

Here's an example: I was at a funeral visitation last weekend, waiting outside while a rosary was being said for the deceased. Some of the other people outside were making fun of the rosary. Yes, you read that correctly. At a funeral, there were people making fun of the rosary being said for the departed. Anyway, I didn't know anyone else who was around, so I didn't say anything to them about this appalling lack of respect. I figured it wouldn't do any good.

And this morning when I read the review excerpted above I had some thoughts about it, but I didn't plan to blog because I didn't think my opinions would be of interest to anyone. And then I remembered. The call was to open my eyes and open my mouth, not to be interesting or even effective. The words are my responsibility; the response is not. Luckily, repentance is always an option, so onward!

Although I am a Christian, I rarely read what is called Christian literature. I'm not using the conditional term above because I don't think the literature is Christian. It's just that, as with so many other parts of our culture today, it seems certain people have co-opted the term so that nothing outside their realm is considered Christian. In order to satisfy that segment of the population, a book has to uphold conservative values, particularly those pertaining to personal morality. It also has to say at its core that although there may be some ups and downs to life, correct religious belief and practice will eventually give you all the answers you need.

Which brings me to a Christian author I do like: C.S. Lewis. I read his works, you should pardon the expression, religiously. But apparently he's not quite Christian enough. A library colleague I respect in Arkansas, Lesley Knieriem, made this statement about him in response to a request for Christian authors: "Lewis's space trilogy [is] well known, but . . . once again would not be acceptable to the ECPA." The ECPA is the Evangelical Christian Publishers Association. I had to look that up.

I can see what Lesley means. The final book in the series cited has the Jesus stand-in (named Ransom, because Lewis is not a subtle man) utter this line about one of his companions: "He is our sceptic; a very important office." Somehow I can't see a Gilbert Morris protagonist making that kind of statement. Even less can I picture a contemporary piece of Christian children's literature containing a scene like the one near the end of the Chronicles of Narnia series, where a person who has been serving Satan (or Baal, depending on your interpretation) all his life is told that there is a place for him in heaven because his actions were virtuous, even though they were pointed at the wrong God!

In the end, I think they problem is one of intent. It seems to be that the current crop of Christian authors seek to comfort their readers, while Lewis was always in the business of challenging his, even the youngest of them. And when it comes to my religious health, I don't need a lot of massage. I need resistance training.

What did you see today?

I heard about a medical appointment

2010-04-06T19:40:00.008-05:00

Context
A coworker who was in my office today mentioned that she wouldn't be available for something because she had a doctor's appointment in Dallas she'd made a year ago. As the day went on I grew increasingly curious about what sort of medical appointment one would make a year in advance.

Commentary
If you think I'm going to satisfy your curiosity about what kind of medical appointment is made a year in advance, I have bad news for you for two reasons:

1) I don't know.
2) It's someone's medical appointment, for crying out loud!

Anyway, my intent is to blog about my curiosity. I have always been enormously curious. The "open my eyes" aspect of this blog is never a burden on me; I'm constantly trying to see what's going on and why, especially when it comes to people. It's the main reason I studied history at Rice: the opportunity to find out what people did in a given situation, and better yet, how it turned out, was well-nigh irresistible to me.

Nothing wrong with curiosity since I'm not a cat, but in my case it can lead to snooping. My curiosity about what makes people tick has lead me to read diaries, eavesdrop on private conversations and, on one memorable occasion, read a series of love letters between a coworker and someone who was decidedly not her husband.

Please understand, I don't snoop in order to exert any power over a person, either in terms of blackmail or gossip. Frankly, in order to use any secrets I learn I would have to reveal how I came by the knowledge and that's just plain embarrassing. Nope, it really is just a case of me saying, "Oh! That's what's going on in that person's life. Interesting." In fact, if I wanted to justify myself I could even say that it gives me some insights that help me love my brothers and sisters in Christ more.

Except that it doesn't, any more than rape helps spark a romantic relationship. I was so pleased, by the way, when General Hospital finally dealt with that. I know it was hard to tarnish one of their supercouples, but seriously!

Anyway, snooping is information rape: it takes something from a person that they might have offered willingly without giving him/her a choice in the matter. It's not only violence, it's laziness, in the sense of not taking the time to cultivate a relationship where intimacies are shared as equals. So I think it's better to live with a little unsatisfied curiosity than to feed vampirically off someone else's emotional life.

What did you hear today?

I saw a lack of capitalization

2010-03-19T21:18:00.004-05:00

Context
I did New Staff Orientations for five new library employees today. Part of the orientation is filling out a time sheet on the computer and printing it out to be turned in to payroll. Two of the students typed their names on the paysheet in all lower-case letters.

Commentary
When I saw my students not capitalizing their names, I had three progressively softer reactions:

1) This is bad grammar.

2) This is inappropriate grammar; i.e. there are some circumstances where lower case is OK for names, like for e-mail addresses or if you're e.e. cummings, but this is not one of them.

3) This is a stylistic choice that makes no difference in this context. After all, it wasn't going to keep anybody from getting paid or anything.

I think the fact that #3 was definitely true but I still had reactions #1 and #2 says something about me. Ah well, I notice stuff; that's my job.

So since I do notice, I wonder what typing your name in lower-case says about the students in question. Specifically, is it really a stylistic choice, or does the person not know any better? Actually, that second choice could be divided in two: does the person not know names are traditionally capitalized in English grammar (Yeesh! I hope not!) or do they not know how to capitalize on a computer (still sad, but not as sad)? From an educational standpoint, the answers to these questions are important. Ignorance requires a remedy, but stylistic choices can be the start of a student-teacher dialog on different modes of expression.

I'm reminded of when I taught in a minority-dominated high school in the late 1980s. We used to agonize over whether some of what we were teaching was tantamount to expecting students to deny their native cultures. Over time, I came to believe that my job was to offer the kids the tools to make an informed choice: if they chose to adopt the values and habits of the dominant culture, their lives might be enriched in some ways and impoverished in others. Either way, they go in with their eyes open. Which is always a good idea.

What did you see today?

I heard a disparaging remark

2010-03-06T16:18:00.012-06:00

Context
One of my flights back from the COSUGI conference lasted a little under three hours. During it, a baby on board screamed bloody murder at varying intervals. Once, he or she probably kept it up for a good ten minutes. At the end of the flight, a man in my row said, "Horrible flight!"

Commentary
I hate to fly. This may come as a surprise to members of my family because I used to love it, and I still do fly on a regular basis, but I hate it. Usually this hatred takes the form of mild anxiety, often for weeks before an anticipated trip, but it sometimes turns into full-blown panic while on the plane. All told, I prefer the train. So for me, "horrible flight" would either mean I cowered in terror all the way or the plane crashed at some point. I guess most people would agree that the latter would count as a horrible flight.

But I don't want to talk about how brave my seatmate was about flying or how tolerant I am of fussy children. I want to talk about what I think upsets both of us, which is the lack of control. Once I get on that plane, I can't control how it moves or whether it lands safely or not, and that makes me crazy. Under non-flying circumstances, one can usually deal with a screaming baby that's not your own by either walking away or trying to convince the parents to do so. On a plane, not so much.

So for both of us, perhaps the feeling of helplessness is upsetting. What's interesting is the difference in what makes us feel helpless. I've already spent too much time speculating about my seatmate's feelings, so I won't try and figure out why flying doesn't appear to bother him. I will say that generally, crying babies who aren't being abused by their parents don't bother me. In the situation on the plane, I wasn't helpless. I could have tuned the baby out or listened to iTunes on my laptop. What I actually did was feel sorry for the baby and the parents. It's just about impossible to explain to an infant what ear-popping is and how to handle it.

Which leads me to faith in general. I am a firm believer that God controls everything; that it's His world and we're just living in it. This does not, however, make me behave fatalistically. I believe every moment is an opportunity to decide whether we're going to try to participate in God's will, oppose it, or ignore it. I find I always do better when I try to participate. As I mentioned in an earlier post on patience, I find I do better when I spend less time on, "Why is God doing this?" and more on "Why does He want me around while He is?"

It's a good theory; I certainly don't always put it into practice. I often say, as Mother Teresa did, "I know God will not give me anything I can't handle. I just wish that He didn't trust me so much." On the other hand, as I was reminded when I read on this blog, I think sometimes God likes to remind us that it's not all about how well we handle things for ourselves. So I try to remember that too when I fly.

What did you hear today?

I saw a Twitter hashtag

2010-03-03T21:36:00.006-06:00

Context
In our opening session at the COSUGI conference today, one of our speakers put up a PowerPoint slide we were encouraging us to Twitter about happenings at the conference under the #cosugi10 hashtag.

Commentary
More conference inspiration!

I don't use Twitter. I've never understood why people who weren't standing next to me would be interested in a random short things I might have to say. Random long things, sure, that's why I have a blog. But I think the short form just lends itself to less consideration.

In fact, as soon as they started talking about the hashtag in my session, I thought of two things I could tweet and they were both unkind. As such, I would have no desire for them to be attached to my name for any period of time after I'd uttered them. And I've learned the lesson many kids haven't: any information you post on the internet could come back to haunt you later.

But what if I expanded this notion? What if I started behaving like anything I said, even just to my closest friends, could come back to haunt me later? After all, God is surely going to hear and remember it. Is that why James puts so much emphasis on controlling our tongues? Maybe the next version of the Bible should say something about tweets as well.

What did you see today?

I heard about an exclusive service

2010-03-02T12:49:00.005-06:00

Context
I’m attending a class just prior to the COSUGI conference this week. It’s the same conference as this post and this one, and even this one referred to, but they’ve changed the name of it to accommodate a merger of two vendors. This year’s conference is at Disney’s Coronado Springs Resort, where it's hard to get off the grounds of the resort itself on foot. If you want to go to Disney attractions the resort provides a free bus, but all of us in the class have found it difficult/expensive to go anywhere non-Disney related. Today I went exploring and found a Lynx stop in the “cast member” (that’s what Disney calls staff) parking lot. When I went to the concierge desk to ask for a route map for Lynx, they told me that stop is for cast members only.

Commentary
I try to stick to "just the facts" in the Context section, so now I'm going to add some emotion.

1) I mentioned that we were finding it difficult to travel to non-Disney destinations. I didn't mention that we've been here for five days and we're desperate to get off the reservation!

2) The people at the concierge desk were genuinely perplexed by my desire to ride a public bus. I, in turn, was astonished that Disney asserts enough power in Orlando that they can reserve a bus stop (probably several bus stops) for their employees only.

I'm also a little curious about what would happen if I attempted to board a bus at the "cast members only" stop. Disney prides itself on customer service, after all. On the other hand, and I mean this as a compliment, cast members at this resort have proven remarkably gifted at saying "no" while still smiling brightly. I'm still annoyed by the exclusivity of the service, though, and not just because I'm being thwarted in my plans.

I think it's also because of the message the hotel seems to be sending. One of the reasons my classmates and I want to go someplace "normal" is that Walt Disney World is unrelentingly entertainment-oriented. This is, of course, not surprising, but it can be a little wearying. Even my incredibly nice husband is concerned that he may go off on the next phone operator who wishes him a "magical evening."

This attitude may be particularly grating for me because when I go to a work conference I go to, um, work, not play. (OK, I blog, but sometimes that feels like work!) I'm not trying to sound goody-goody; I'm just a person who does not generally mix business with pleasure. I don't go to theme parks when I supposed to be attending a conference and I don't usually check e-mail when I'm on vacation.

What's interesting is I think the administration at Disney understands this work/play separation very well. That's why the public bus stop, where mundane things like commuting to and fro a job happen, is hidden a good ways away from the magical guest areas.

What did you hear today

I heard an invitation to a town hall meeting

2010-02-18T16:57:00.006-06:00

Context
I answered the phone this afternoon and received a prerecorded invitation from my senator, David Vitter, to attend a town hall meeting. I cannot repeat it verbatim, but it went along the lines of, "I want to invite you to a town hall meeting to discuss important economic issues, including creating high-quality jobs for Louisiana, ending federal bailouts and cutting rampant federal spending . . . " At this point I hung up.

Commentary
Am I being unrealistically nostalgic, or didn't there use to be a time when "town hall" meant "Let's talk about issues and see how we want to resolve them," as opposed to "I already know the solution, I just want to get everyone together and tell them what it is"?

I'm not trying to be difficult. I recognize that I'm a liberal and Sen. Vitter is a Republican, so it's not necessarily realistic to expect that we will share political opinions in common. Moreover, he won the election so he has some assurance that the majority of Louisiana voters agree with his stand. So I have no problem with the idea that he's already made up his mind. It's the pretending that he's trying to get constituents together to gather feedback that bothers me.

What Senator Vitter is proposing is a rally, not a town hall meeting. He is up for reelection this year, so it's perfectly reasonable for him to have a rally to whip up support. But there's no need for him to invite me.

What did you hear today?

I saw an irate message

2010-02-04T16:51:00.005-06:00

Context
A few days ago I received a call from a library patron who was puzzled because she couldn't use our Overdrive service. After investigation, I let her know that was because she held a Green Gold card. These cards are issued to patrons whose home library is in a parish near ours and allow the bearer access to our physical resources, but not our electronic ones.

The patron was dismayed by this for two reasons:

1) The Overdrive service was the only reason she had applied for the card, so she could have saved herself a trip from Minden to Shreveport.

2) Her friend had applied for the same reason, and she wasn't being blocked.

I apologized for our mistake in not explaining the Green Gold restrictions better and, trying to cover all bases, asked the patron if she wanted to rat out her friend so I could block her. The patron said, "No." The next day I received a message from a fellow staff member letting me know who the "friend" was. I had not solicited this information, but I used it to go ahead and block the second woman.

Today this e-mail the friend's husband sent the message to the "support" link on the Overdrive website. Messages sent to this link go to an account that everyone in our department reads.

"Well it seems the rumor is true. We heard that even with the Green Card and a membership in the Shreve Library, we were going to be cut off. You see we live in Minden, and made 2 trips to the Shreve Library with the intent of joining to be able to download E-Books. This was addressed up front and approved and now we are shut off. I am really disappointed. You see we spend probably more money in Shreveport than we do in Minden so its not like we don't support your city. I served 20 years in the Air Force and I don't recall saying I would not help if Shreveport was bombed or in some sort of trouble. I served my country including Shreveport. If us checking out an E-Book puts your system in that much of a bind then God have mercy on your city. Its all about greed from the man on the street to the Mayor and President. Thank goodness I don't live and die for your perfect city. Oh yes, card #[redacted] is the account and good luck on your greed."

Commentary
I could of course make many, many comments about the e-mail message above, and I'd be lying if I said we didn't pass the message around and make several of those remarks this morning, to general hilarity.

However, I'm more interested in talking about my immediate response when I saw the message. I started thinking of several replies I wanted to make to the patron and I could feel my pulse racing right along with my brain. In other words, a fight or flight response (as is customary for me, I was leaning toward "fight").

This was irrational. First of all, I'm a religious pacifist (yes, I'm reusing links from previous entries, cope!). Also, under no conceivable set of circumstances was I facing a threat. Truthfully, the circumstances should have provoked no other response but laughter and pity, but there it is. I didn't behave violently, but my body wanted to. My pacifist principles only go so far; they don't completely change my makeup. In fact, the Bible says my subsequent snarkiness does constitute violence.

Where does that leave me? Mindful of how wrong my immediate reaction to a situation can be, for one thing. Glad to be a Christian for another. I can say, along with the apostle Paul, that the good I would do, I do not do (another version here). Some people may think of this as a cop-out; I think it's just a realistic assessment of how badly we need the grace and love of our Father.

What did you see today?

I saw a request for something new

2009-12-28T17:39:00.007-06:00

Context
I belong to an e-mail list called "Help a Reporter Out" (HARO), which is a place people can go to request help with research. Today one of the requests was for tips for people to manage their money, but the requester wanted new material, not the usual "make a budget," "cut up your credit card"-type of suggestions. I can't print the actual request here, because one of the five rules of HARO is: "You MAY forward queries to friends, but DO NOT post them on blogs or anywhere on the web."

Commentary
HARO is an interesting list. I like it because I feel like it keeps me in touch with current social trends, but it's not for everyone. For one thing, media-ready discourse seems to be valued more highly than verifiable information. This leads to requests along the lines of, "I need a source to discuss the link between vaccines and autism." There is, of course, no clinical evidence for such a link, but HARO has no objection to you looking for people to talk about it anyway.

Also, the emphasis on currency that I treasure is likely what drives requests like the one I saw today. The journalist in question seems to be saying, "Yes, the 'how to manage your money' angle may appear to have been done to death, but I'm sure there's some set of tips out there that will give it new life."

This may be so, and far be it for me to deprive the world of important information, but I can't help but think "new is not necessarily better." As far as I know, two of the best ways to manage your money are to keep a budget and cut up your credit card. At least, that's what worked for me and my husband about 18 years ago when we decided to start getting serious about this stuff. OK, we didn't cut up the credit cards. We just stopped using them.

So if we're not looking for something new because it works better, why are we? My cynically ironic answer? Money. It's hard to make a buck off suggesting financial discipline and sacrifice. Instead, "experts" assert that they have special tricks and secret knowledge and if you just shell out a little bit to learn them, you'll profit from the experience. Well, someone will profit.

The same thing happens in the weight-loss industry. This article appeared in the USA Weekend magazine I read yesterday. The author, with a straight face, blames the conventional wisdom of eating less and exercising more for the fact that obesity is spreading in the U.S. He then suggests his particular set of new tricks and lets you know you can learn more about them by purchasing his $20.00 book. Because what possible profit could there be in following the conventional steps to lose weight?

What did you see today?

I saw a billboard

2009-12-02T19:18:00.006-06:00

Context
Lee Michaels, a Louisiana-based chain of jewelry stores has several billboards in Shreveport. The one I passed today said, "If a woman says she doesn't want anything, she's lying."

Commentary
The general marketing technique of jewelry stores, particularly during the holidays, is to say that the way to a woman's heart is through expensive baubles. Perhaps I shouldn't take advertising so seriously, but I don't get this idea at all.

Don't get me wrong; I like pretty shiny things and I have a diamond engagement ring. But about the time it started being "our money," I realized that putting a huge chunk of it into personal decoration was actually a contrary indicator of how well I would be taken care of in the future. On the other hand, I understand that other women may have differing opinions about both money and relationships.

But now Lee Michaels has libeled me personally. I, in fact, frequently tell my husband and others that I don't want anything for Christmas or other occasions. It's not that I don't appreciate gifts and the affection behind them, but frankly I'm at a financial place in my life where if I want something, I buy it for myself. Of course, I may be in this place because I don't indulge in a lot of expensive jewelry, but I digress.

The point is, I'm not lying. I really don't want anything and won't be the slightest bit offended if you don't get me a Christmas gift. Even if I get you something, because I only do that if I want to, not because I'm setting up some kind of winter solstice-specific swap meet.

So quit telling lies about me, Lee Michaels. And if you'd like to discontinue your general practice of implying that women in general are sneaky gold-diggers who can't afford their own jewelry, that would be peachy too.

What did you see today?

I heard a plea for help

2009-11-28T15:46:00.007-06:00

Context
At my Quaker meeting we usually have a program before our meeting for worship. The program today was about handling emotions like anger and sadness while still remaining faithful to the testimony on integrity. During our discussion, one regular attender spoke about someone he knows whose life is in turmoil because she refuses to forgive her father for mistreating her. He asked if we had a suggestion for something to say that wouldn't cause her to turn on him and I said that nothing could ensure the desired response.

Commentary
I hope I wasn't too harsh with my co-religionist. My concern was that he might be seeking a magic bullet here and I wanted to discourage him in that endeavor.

I blame writers. Frequently in works of fiction on page, stage and screen, someone says something that ends all argument and sets everyone listening on the right track (I'm particularly annoyed when this happens to be the loudest voice on a TV show, but I digress). So we might come to believe that there are words that will have this effect in real life as well, but in my experience they are far fewer and further between.

I'm not saying it's a bad idea to be like a writer in choosing words carefully. I rehearse stuff all the time. In fact, this is about the third different narrative style I had considered for today's blog entry. If you would think one of the other two might have been better, oh well!

It's another aspect of fiction writing that may be getting in the way, though. Writers not only get to choose what their characters say, they get to choose how other characters react to it. I think the question posited in this Salon interview is nonsensical: "Do you think novelists are responsible for what their characters think?" If we're not responsible for the products of our own minds, we're in serious trouble!

In real life though, we cannot possibly control how people respond to us. I've been known to use the phrase "appropriate response," but realistically the question has to be, "appropriate according to what criteria?" I find I can't even predict my own response to stimuli with any regularity; a comment I would just let slide under some circumstances becomes an unpardonable transgression under others.

So am I saying my friend from the meeting should just avoid talking to this woman about forgiveness, since he can't predict her reaction? No. I just think he should pay attention to another aspect of real life that is different than fiction: the length of it. I think one of the reasons fiction writers use these "magic bullet" lines is because they need to wrap up a plot in a finite amount of time. We are under no such constraints. We can talk to a person about forgiveness and even if they yell at us, even if they add us to their list of unforgivens, we still may have an impact long down the road.

I believe this is why the Bible calls us to faithfulness, not necessarily effectiveness. Or at least, not effectiveness that we can easily measure. Time and again in God's Word, prophets are praised for bringing a message, whether it appears to be working or not. And some of the effect isn't known even during that prophet's lifetime. It comes when I read the message and learn something. Talk about an unanticipated response!

What did you hear today?

I saw an article about football fans

2009-10-23T16:57:00.009-05:00

Context
The Washington Redskins are not having a good season. They're in no danger of breaking the Detroit Lions' futility record, but as I read in this article today, their fans are unhappy. The article refers to a fan briefly holding up a sign saying "Black Sunday," which refers to this Bruce Dern movie, until security personnel took it away.

Commentary
Ah yes, time for another football post! Eight previous ones right here, so enjoy! In this case, though, I don't want to talk about sports. I want to talk about the right to be offensive. My husband read the part of the Redskins article to me about the Black Sunday poster and we both agreed that it's pretty darn tacky to invoke a terrorist attack just because your team's 2-4. On the other hand, we both enjoy some forms of offensive humor (we often think South Park is a stitch and a half, for example), and as comic book readers we often know that what we consider highly creative is considered irredeemable trash by others.

So is it just a matter of taste, or do some people have more of a right to be offensive than others? I don't mean a legal right, but rather an ethical entitlement, someone I'm less likely to accuse of crossing a line of decency, even if I disagree with her/him. In discussing this over dinner, my husband and I came up with three factors that contribute to our acceptance of outrageous speech or behavior:

1) Artistic license. Although this occasionally drives conservatives up the wall, art is expected to be "out there." It's hard to consider a work creative if it follows convention, and unconventional can sometimes shade over into offensive. "Black Sunday" gets some points for creatively expressing just how bad she thought her team was.

2) Putting your name on it. Anonymity when being offensive makes it seem less like you're making a cogent social statement and more like you're surreptitiously tossing spitballs from the back of the classroom. Our Redskins fan falls about in the middle on this one. She didn't put a bag on her head at the stadium, but neither did she hold up a sign that said "I'm Mary Smith and this is what I believe." A Robert Mapplethorpe photograph says "Robert Mapplethorpe" right on it, so you know who to complain to. Or about, since he died 20 years ago.

3) The social contract. If I go to a Lenny Bruce concert and get offended by the cuss words, I'm not really keeping up my end of the bargain. After all, Bruce himself said he wasn't there to get laughs. This is where the lady at the Redskins' game's justification falls completely apart. NFL football is, as they say, "sports entertainment." Invoking terrorism in a place where people generally go to forget the troubles of the real world is not only offensive, it's also kind of mean.

What did you see today?

I saw a story about violence

2009-10-16T15:05:00.008-05:00

Context
I'm still working through John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath. A passage I read today talked about the Akron Rubber Strike, and how part of the reason for its peaceful resolution was the fact that the striking workers made a show of being armed and organized.

Commentary
I used to plow through books, but that is no longer the case, possibly because of the number of things that divide my attention. And it's not only reading that suffers. During my attempt to write this entry I have removed a kitten from my sleeve seven times, overheard a conversation between my neighbor and her child (my windows are open) and played with the dog and let her out. And back in. My progress through the Grapes of Wrath is not helped in the slightest by the number of times I put the book down and go "huh!"

Steinbeck seems to be making a clear point in his discussion of the Akron incident: vigilantes in Akron were perfectly willing to violently put an end to the strike up until the time they realized the workers might fight back. Then they backed down.

I can see the reasonableness of this approach. No point in fighting if you can't guarantee yourself a victory, after all. In the U.S. we try to make sure we're never in this situation by "acting against emerging threats before they are fully formed," which is known as "preemptive self-defense." Even the Just War Doctrine (#2309 at this link), which is supposed to give a good ethical grounding to death and destruction, requires "serious prospects of success," a.k.a. "Don't be a David going up against a Goliath."

So there you have it. If you engage in violence, you run the risk of either getting hurt yourself or looking like the worst kind of coward by beating up on an obviously weaker opponent. Can you see why I'm a pacifist?

What did you see today?

I saw a passage in The Grapes of Wrath

2009-10-13T20:14:00.006-05:00

Context
John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath is the Big Read for Shreveport this year. The book intersperses chapters about the Joad family and their journey west in the wake of the Dust Bowl with those containing background and commentary about the wave of history.

One of the latter types of chapters contains Steinbeck's theories about how oppression creates fertile ground for the rise of collectivism. As for the oppressor, Steinbeck encapsulates his state thusly: "For the quality of owning freezes you forever into 'I,' and cuts you off forever from the 'we.'"

Commentary
The Grapes of Wrath is an interesting book. It's a polemic, but that doesn't make it any less interesting. And I agree with Steinbeck that there are things in this world that inhibit the creation of community and that ownership can be one of those things. I don't believe it's the only thing though, and I don't believe that people who own stuff are doomed to self-absorption.

I think anything we are trying to keep safe has the potential to poison our relationships with others, because it tends to create a "me vs. them" mentality. The desire to hold on to our possessions makes us believe that every person we meet wants to deprive us of them. On the other hand, the habit of evaluating people based strictly on how much of a potential threat they are to our children also erects unnecessary walls. Even the steps we take to protect our own hearts from hurt can separate us from interactions that could pay us back a thousandfold.

I'm not saying yearning for security is wrong. I'm saying that left to our own devices we tend to want the wrong kinds of safety and use inappropriate means to accomplish them. I believe we're better off commending our stuff, our children, our hearts and yes, even our community to God and trusting that He will both provide and protect, to His greater glory. So I'm not looking for the "I" or the "we." I'm going for the "Him."

What did you see today?

I saw an e-mail from a Friend

2009-09-10T18:08:00.010-05:00

Context
A member of the Quaker meeting I attend sent an e-mail today introducing a woman who is planning to join us for the first time on Saturday. We are a small meeting, so new people are very noticeable.

Commentary
"Go therefore an make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you." These words are almost the last things Jesus says in the gospel according to Matthew (New Revised Standard Version) and are referred to as The Great Commission.

No passage in the Bible has more power to both inspire and terrify Christians. We know that Jesus has done great things for us and theoretically we want to share that good news with everyone, but the practice is often lacking. I've been sampling Jim Henderson's excellent book Evangelism Without Additives, and it has a lot to say about both our discomfiture and our ineffectualness.

Henderson talks a lot about methodology. I'd like to talk a little about goals. It seems to me that one of the sub-goals of our evangelism practices is convincing someone to come to our worship services. Why is that? I'm pretty sure we don't actually believe God only works within a given set of walls or timeframe, so why are we so concerned with bringing people into our building at a certain time instead of taking the love of God to them? Is it laziness? Do we feel too vulnerable out there in the world and want to return to our comfortable surroundings? Or is it a simple way of keeping score, where a big crowd at church equals successful completion of God's mission?

Whatever our reasoning, I don't think it's sound in light of what Jesus actually commanded us to do. The reason I don't think so comes from Jesus' actual last words in Matthew: "And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age." Not a single word about us having to come to Him, and He's the Master. Imagine what we servants are called to do.

What did you see today?

I saw a passage in a Stephen King book

2009-09-06T10:26:00.014-05:00

Context
Stephen King is my second favorite author, after C.S. Lewis. Because I've read many of his books several times, sometimes I just go back and read passages again, revisiting certain concepts rather than taking in the whole work. I did this today with Pet Sematary, and found a passage describing the horror (well, it is Stephen King, right?) of leaving a young child alone in the house with a dying relative.

Commentary
This is my 100th blog entry! Hope it's worth it.

The Stand is my favorite Stephen King novel; in fact I've already blogged about here and here. But Pet Sematary is hands-down the scariest Stephen King work I've read, right up there with The Silence of the Lambs in terms of "don't read it before you go to bed" creepiness.

The passage about the little girl left alone while someone passes away is horrifying not in a scary way, but more in the "What were these people thinking?" sense the protagonist muses to himself for our benefit. One of the qualities of childhood should be the nurturing presence of adults when dealing with the harsh realities of life.

In the New Revised Standard Version of the New Testament, people are referred to as the "children of God" 14 times (yes, I have a concordance), mostly in this passage in Romans. By contrast, there are only ten reference to the "people of God" and those are all in the Old Testament, where the "children of God" never make an appearance.

What's going on here? Did we suddenly become less mature with the coming of Christ? Did we come to realize that we needed more protection and nurturing than originally thought? Or is it just a translation quirk between Hebrew and Greek? I don't know; I just know I'm more likely to think of myself as a child of God than a woman of God.

If we're children now, do we ever grow up? Maybe. In fact, that may be what happens in heaven. I've been thinking about heaven lately, inspired by a fellow Friend in my meeting. She has little patience with mainstream Christianity, and I believe some of that is because of what she considers the ridiculous imagery associated with it. So she'll ask questions such as, "Do you really believe God is an old man with a white robe?" or "What is heaven like, really?", possibly referring to the "sitting on a cloud all day playing the harp" idea.

My current view of heaven (could change any minute, my ideas on matters like these tend to be capricious to put it charitably) thinks of it as where we get to become the adult children of God. And so our views of heaven now are often similar to the ways children think about growing up. There are plenty of "I'll get to stay up as late as I want and eat candy bars all day!" visions. The harp-playing idea may come from what children often see of adult behavior in church, mindlessly mouthing praises to God and not really doing anything useful. There are also people who are horrified by the prospect of heaven: "If I can't have my whiskey and tobacco, I'm not going!" These are like children who cannot conceive of being sexually mature: "I'm going to like boys? EWWWW!"

The point is, as children we really have no idea what being a grown up is like. We get glimpses, we have hope and fears, but the reality is that not only do our circumstances change as we mature, we do as well. We'll probably even see different things.

What did you see today?

I saw comments on a blog

2009-09-04T13:31:00.006-05:00

Context
The library I work at has a new book by Kate Gosselin. I got to looking around on the Web for more information about her and came to the TLC website, which has a blog written by Kate herself. The posting I looked at had 235 comments on it.

Commentary
My husband thinks I'm addicted to tabloids. I say that can't possibly be true, since I've never paid money for one of them since they lied about Carol Burnett. But the truth is, I do read them in the supermarket checkout line or in the staff lounge and that's the only reason I know anything about Kate Gosselin at all, since I'm not a fan of reality TV.

As you might imagine, the tabloids give me a kind of skewed summary of the Gosselins' life; for example, I didn't know until today that their eight children consisted of one set of twins and one set of sextuplets. So it was interesting to me to read what the lady had to say about her own life in her blog. Mostly she sounded shallow and saccharine, writing in the mommy-blogger style, nothing particularly out of the ordinary.

Then I saw the comments. Most of them had nothing to do with the topic Mrs. Gosselin was writing about, but instead offered her sympathy and support regarding her recent divorce. This seemed kind of odd to me on two levels: why would the commenters care so much for a woman that they, frankly, only know from television and why would the support of anonymous strangers (nobody uses their real name when they comment on a blog, right? ;-)) be of any value to a woman going through a painful personal transition?

The negative responses were even more incomprehensible. Again, why would she care about the disapproval of people she's never met, but even more, why on earth do they disapprove so much? Kate Gosselin may be vapid, vain, and moneygrubbing. She may even be a bad wife and/or mother, but she's not your wife or mother! Why effect could she possibly have on your life that would inspire you to spend time carefully crafting a hatchet job? Of course, I'm never going to get back the time I spent writing this blog post either, so maybe I'm just feeding the beast.

What did you see today?

I saw a question

2009-09-03T17:43:00.009-05:00

Context
First United Methodist Church has an electronic sign in their parking that flashes a variety of messages about events, upcoming sermons, etc. Today one of the messages said, I think, "How does God guide us? Romans 12:1-2."

This is the text of Romans 1:1-2, according to the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible: "I appeal to you therefore, brothers and sisters, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God--what is good and acceptable and perfect."

Commentary
I sometimes get concerned about the ways churches market themselves, believing that they sometimes work too hard to be the "cool kids," instead of the people of God, but I honestly like First Methodist's sign. I really feel like I've learned a lot about their faith community just by my almost daily observation of the sign.

That being said, I'm not sure what they were trying to say with today's question and quote. Maybe it's a preview of an upcoming sermon, because I don't think Romans 12:1-2 answers the question "How does God guide us?" More like, "How do we prepare ourselves for God's guidance?", which is an important question in and of itself.

As for the original question, I got to thinking about it right away. Not having the Bible memorized, I didn't know until I got home what Romans 12:1-2 said, but my answer to "How does guide God me?" (I wouldn't dream of speaking for anyone else) is, "By how I feel, as long as I'm wiling to examine those feelings closely."

As mentioned previously, my conscience is very active. I generally know when I've done wrong because I feel bad. Not always right away, because most of my sins involve anger and arrogance, and those emotions give a nice little adrenaline rush, but when I start to come down I realize, "Wow! That was bad behavior!" Conversely, when I do the right thing, I feel good. Again, not necessarily immediately; an onerous task in the pursuit of righteousness is still an onerous task, but eventually I find I'm given a generous measure of both peace and joy.

These "not right away"s and "eventually"s are the reason I make examining my feelings closely part of the formula for discerning God's will. I can't just take an "If it feels good, do it!" attitude, because being evil can feel awfully good at first. I believe we have a lot of lower instincts and sin appeals to all of them. I also think we have a tendency to tell ourselves we're happy or content or even justified when we're not, and can carry on that way for quite a while. But my experience is, if I really examine what's going on I feel unsatisfied if I've been unjust or callous or dishonest. My conscience is saying, "You've got unfinished business. And you can cover your ears and say, 'la, la, la' all you want. It doesn't change a thing."

What did you see today?

I saw a discussion of blame

2009-08-14T17:44:00.005-05:00

Context
I sent out an e-mail to the staff of our Main Library today to let them know about a computer glitch we thought might affect patrons and taking responsibility on behalf of my department. The director of the library, being a nice guy, sent an e-mail back saying, "No one is to blame here." Then, because it was Friday afternoon, we got into a silly discussion of who really was to blame. We decided on the framers of the Constitution.

Commentary
OK, you had to be there. But I understand Dr. Heezen's intent, as it mirrors something I often say, "I'm not interested in assessing blame; I want to solve the problem." On the other hand, in order to prevent a problem from recurring it's often necessary to know who caused it in the first place. Plus I'm a firm believer, with Samuel Smiles, that a mistake is the best opportunity for learning on the planet.

So is there a way to get to get the benefits of assigning responsibility for errors without oppressing those guilty of them? There may be, if we stick to some basic principles:

1) Assessing responsibility is not the end of the story. It's the beginning of a process of improvement that ideally includes not just the person who made the error, but also anyone who can help her/him prevent it in the future, like a trainer, copy editor or beta tester (Yup, that's what we needed today!).

2) You cannot judge a person's character by one of his/her actions. A person who makes a mistake is not a screw-up, anymore than a person who drinks a glass of water is the ocean.

3) The person who bore the brunt of the consequences of a mistake may not be ideal for helping the person responsible recover. AA step 9 is to make amends to the people you've wronged, but you don't usually ask those people to be your sponsor. A disinterested third-party often brings a more solution-oriented perspective.

What did you see today?

I saw a TV show about politics

2009-08-04T20:06:00.006-05:00

Context
I bought the entire run of The West Wing on DVD recently. Tonight I watched an episode called "Five Votes Down," which was about the West Wing staffers' attempts to get a gun control law passed by Congress.

Commentary
I love The West Wing, so now that I have this set you may be hearing me comment on it a lot!

I'm concerned about gun control. I'm also concerned about health care, the various wars taking place around the globe, and the environment. But after watching the beginning of this episode, which contains the great line "There are two things in the world you never want to let people see how you make 'em - laws and sausages," I've decided to become a one-issue voter. At least for now.

The issue is decency. And I don't mean the "politicians have to adhere to a strict moral code that I can't uphold myself" variety. I mean treating people decently. Being respectful of people you disagree with. Agreeing with people because you believe what they're saying, not because of some potential personal gain in the future. Seeing a person who's been brought low and helping them, even if you warned them in advance that this was where their actions would lead. Not indulging the urge to tear down those who have some advantage over you because you're jealous of their good fortune. Decency.

It may just be that I think our tangible problems are intractable, so I've decided to concentrate on something more ephemeral, but I hope not. I think what's going on here is that I no longer believe we can solve any problems by treating our opponents badly. I'm a pacifist because I believe violence doesn't solve anything, and over time I've learned that violence can take a lot of subtle forms, like contempt and close-mindedness and fearmongering.

So when it comes time to vote I'm looking for problem-solvers, not naysayers and "I told you so"ers. I don't mind if you hold a strong opinion; I hold plenty of them myself. I'm just no longer willing to believe that my opinion or yours is the only one decent people can hold.

What did you see today?

I saw a description of low self-esteem

2009-07-16T21:34:00.006-05:00

Context
I was reading Annie's Mailbox again today. The middle letter was from a woman who described some very disrespectful behavior on her boyfriend's part, who then compounded the offense by telling the writer that all men were like him and she should seek professional help for her insecurities. My husband and I agreed that she should in fact seek professional help, right after dumping his sorry butt.

Commentary
What makes us stay with people who treat us badly? I suppose there's more than one answer, but I always seem to encounter this one when I ask people about it: "This is the best I can do, so I'd better not blow it."

I'm not against humility per se, but when it allows people to continue behaving badly I think it's counter-productive. So I'm going to suggest we channel our low self-esteem in a different direction. Wouldn't the world be a better place if we said, "I don't deserve much, but I'm going to go for the best and then work hard to deserve what I get?"

What did you see today?

I saw a bumper sticker

2009-07-09T18:48:00.011-05:00

Context
As I was driving to my volunteer job today I saw a bumper sticker on a pickup truck that said, "An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject." A quick Google search reveals that "armed=citizen, unarmed=subject" is a common internet trope. I had never heard it before today.

Commentary
I am a religious pacifist. I am not, however, totally anti-gun. Biathlon is my favorite Winter Olympic sport and I actually gave a pro-Second Amendment speech at the American Legion's National Oratorical Contest (of course, I was younger then). However, I am completely flabbergasted by the idea that weapons are our most important, or if I'm to take the bumper sticker literally, only tool of citizenship.

Perhaps I'm overthinking this, but I'd rather be accused of overthinking something than underthinking it. I mean, if your gun is what makes you a citizen, why don't we have an armed coup d'etat every time a pro-gun control candidate is elected? Obviously the ballot box, the peaceful protest, the letter-writing campaign from hell and even the liberally-biased mainstream media (as an actual liberal, that last one gives me a giggle, but I digress) are insignificant props, so why use them?

If I were to be really mean (and I'm in that kind of mood, because this is the dumbest political slogan I've seen all week), I'd say the "must be armed to be a citizen" folks are rank cowards. Think about it. What they're saying is that if they don't have a gun available, they can be made to do anything. Or perhaps, since we know the government is unlikely to be unarmed, they're saying that if someone else holds a gun to their head, they'll do whatever they're told. I know the first one's not true of me and I'm hoping the second isn't either.

In the end, I guess that's the foundation of my pacifism: the belief that there are all kinds of things that are mightier than the sword, and the mightiest of all is the will of God. To which we're all subject.

What did you see today?

I heard a co-worker describe a work situation

2009-07-06T18:11:00.010-05:00

Context
As part of a meeting at the library today, one of my co-workers was talking about the flow of items from Acquisitions to Cataloging. Shreve Memorial's website doesn't have pages for these two departments, but if they did, they'd probably look something like this and this. My co-worker's description of the situation was so self-effacing ("It's perfectly all right if we do it this way,") that we had trouble figuring out her preference. Once we did, we immediately put what she wanted into effect.

Commentary
I have resolved that if anyone ever asks me to lead a meeting, I'm going to put two signs up in plain sight, one saying, "We're seeking the best solution, not a perfect solution," and one saying, "Make sure you're answering the question that was asked." I've now decided to add a third: "Don't start your negotiation with what you'll settle for." I think this one, unlike the other two, might be controversial so I've already worked out some responses to potential objections:

Potential objection #1 - "It's nice to be flexible when you're negotiating, so I should show I am from the very beginning." I certainly agree with the first part of this statement and maybe the second as well, but I also think that negotiation is intended as a reconciliation of of different viewpoints. If you start off embracing all viewpoints, it's not a negotiation, it's a summation. On the other hand, if you state clearly what you want from the get-go you may find, as we did in my co-worker's case, that no negotiation is needed at all. Even if it is, the process can go forward with the concrete goal of truly satisfying as many needs as possible, which is kind of difficult when someone says, "I'll be happy with anything."

Potential objection #2 - "I'm saving effort by stating what's good enough at the start." This is certainly true, but you may end up looking either lazy ("It's too hard to go through the process of working things out.") or possessed of a martyr complex ("Nobody's going to do what I want so I'll just sacrifice. Again.). There's a fine line between the laudable goal of making a negotiation more efficient and contemptible one of circumventing it. I think it's easier to stay on the right side of the line if all parties make decisions about acceptable process instead of one person taking the burden on all by herself.

What did you see today?

I saw a plea for advocacy.

2009-06-23T18:33:00.011-05:00

Context
I was reading PUBLIB today. I've commented on it at least twice before, here and here. In this post the writer is trying to use the nationwide network of PUBLIB subscribers to find as many people in Ohio as she can to advocate for continued funding for libraries in that state.

Commentary
Even though I'm a librarian, I don't usually advocate for increased spending for libraries. Increased use of libraries, sure, but seeking more funding seems a little too self-serving to me, like I'm saying, "Please support my livelihood!"

Upon further consideration, I don't usually advocate for higher government spending anywhere. I know that if I were official receiving these calls I'd be awfully tempted to ask, "OK, where would you like me to cut funding in order to increase it for your pet cause?" I'm not an absolutist when it comes to governments having balanced budgets, but I do know there's no such thing as free money and I hate to advocate for something without considering the adverse effects it may have on other people's lives.

Of course, if a politician really did ask me this question I'd give the President Clinton answer (as quoted in this article, down towards the bottom): "Don't cut anything. Tax me more." It really is ridiculous how little I pay in taxes, given how much I make. When I was looking up this quote on the internet, I was flabbergasted to discover that several states (but not Louisiana) really do have Tax Me More provisions and the Treasury Department takes donations as well. I guess it's time for me to put my money where my mouth is. That's right anti-tax folk, I said "my" money.

What did you see today?

I saw poorly written blogs

2009-06-11T20:09:00.009-05:00

Context
One of the e-mail lists I’m on pointed me in the direction of the Learngasm blog, which includes this entry. The 100 links on it looked interesting so I thought it would take me forever to go through all of them, but that turned out to not be the case. Most of them were poorly written, so I rejected them as wasting my time.

Commentary
There is almost no content in the world that I will wade through poor writing to get at. Living in the 21st century, I find there’s usually enough good writing available on any subject that I can afford to filter this way, so I feel blessed.

So what counts as poor writing? Well, it's similar to poor teaching, which I define this way: any educational experience that is more strongly focused on the teaching than on the learning is of poor quality. My hope is that you’ve never had this happen, but I’ll bet you have: you’re in a class and you quickly discover that the instructor’s goal is just to get through a certain amount of material. Whether you actually understand it is not part of the equation. I think the same dynamic is often at work when people write. They’re seeking to communicate something, but mostly they appear more concerned with getting it off their chest than in ensuring that the message is received.

What are the hallmarks of this kind of writing? Undefined acronyms and references ("My school.” Which is where? What kind of school? What do you do there?), stream of consciousness sentence and paragraph structure, and my personal bugaboo, misspellings and grammatical errors.

“Oh, Lynn,” you might say, “that’s not fair. Grammar and spelling rules in English are really hard to learn. You can’t expect someone to observe all that minutiae.” Whether the rules are hard or not is debatable, but the fact of the matter is they are the conventions we use in order to understand each other. When I teach my Introduction to the World Wide Web, I tell the students that transfer protocols (http, ftp, SMTP) are agreements between computers to share information the same way so they'll understand each other. Rules governing grammar and spelling are the same sort of thing, and disregarding them amounts to breaking a covenant with your reader.

"Aha," you might rejoin (Wow, you're really being feisty about this issue!), "but you break grammar rules all the time. Why, I can see you're just itching to start a sentence with a conjunction like you always do." OK, but I learned in school that breaking grammar rules on purpose isn't poor writing, it's stylized writing. The author who does this is actually creating a new covenant with his/her readers, like when a poem is written in dialect so readers will experience the lyrical qualities of unfamiliar sounds. If I come across something like this I still may choose not to read it, but I will have some respect for the writer's cleverness, creativity and courage.

On the other hand, even if I concede to the clueless blogger that the conventions are hard to learn and apply, that makes the abdication of responsibility even worse. It's like she/he is saying, "It's too difficult for me to figure out whether to use 'there,' 'they're,' or 'their' in this sentence. Instead I'll just type whatever comes to mind. The reader can expend the effort to figure out what I mean." Thank you, but I must respectfully decline.

What did you see today?

I saw routing flags

2009-06-10T17:39:00.010-05:00

Context
Because Shreve Memorial Library has 20 branches and uses a hub-and-spoke model to move materials around(similar to this one, but we try not to lose your luggage ;-)), we have pre-printed, color-coded routing flags that we stick in and sometimes on materials that say where they're going. The problem is, once the item arrives at its destination, the flag becomes temporarily useless. Nobody is trying to send things from the Main Library to the Main Library, after all. So each branch, when they've received a sizable number of these things with their name on them, bundles the flags up and sends them back to the Main Library hub. Our Interlibrary Loans Department is normally responsible for routing both the traveling material and the flags themselves.

I occasionally receive items (correspondence or pieces of hardware I need to look at) with Main Library flags attached to them. Since I receive so few I don't bother to give them to Interlibrary Loans; I just drop them off at the next branch I happen to visit. So I was looking at the three or four flags sitting on my desk awaiting redistribution today.

Commentary
I am not much of an environmentalist. I like to think this is not a character flaw on my part, but just a question of some other aspects of life taking higher priority. However, I do like the "reduce, reuse, recycle" mantra and try to apply it when I can. That's why I like the routing flags; they are single scraps of paper that can be reused over and over again.

So there's something that some of my coworkers do that drives me straight up a wall: they write my name and/or my floor on the flag, which renders it un-reusable. Oh sure, I'm going to be sent more mail at some point in the future, but no one's going to hold on to the routing flag with my name on it waiting for that eventuality. The floor designation's unnecessary anyway; it's Interlibrary Loans' job to know where everyone is in the Main Library. And if you want to attach my name, use a separate piece of paper; don't invalidate the routing flag! See, I told you I get up in arms about this.

So as I was looking at the unsullied, still-reusable flags on my desk, I was wondering why people don't just "do right" in this respect. It's something I frequently wonder about and I've come to the following conclusion: it's because they don't see the world the way I do. There is some quantity of people that don't look at an item that can easily be reused and say to themselves, "I should do everything I can to make that happen."

My first instinct in situations like this is to ponder what I can do to make people change. 45 years of life experience have actually taught me the answer: nothing. The good news is, recent religious exploration has convinced me that it's not only impossible to make everyone conform to my view of the world, it's not even desirable.

God is vast and vastly creative. No one person can perceive, appreciate and participate in all that He is doing. So our different ways of seeing the world are a gift we can offer to the Lord and to each other. For example, when I interact with a friend who thinks airline travel is immoral because of the ecological impact, I get to learn that just owning a Prius isn't enough to call myself an environmentalist, and she gets to see that people can hold other priorities in good faith, like wanting to build community through travel. Everybody gets to grow!

Share with me what you saw today!

I saw my iGoogle page

2009-06-03T14:25:00.006-05:00

Context
I have an iGoogle page. Mainly I use it as a quick link to this blog and for sharing a calendar with my husband. I also have links to some other websites with hard-to-remember addresses that I use regularly and a couple of RSS feeds. There are a lot of other things I could add to the page, but in the three years I've had it I've made very few changes.

Commentary
As mentioned previously, I am not a quick adopter of technological innovation. In fact, if I'm completely honest with myself I have to say I'm not a person who changes easily, period.

I'm not change-averse; I'm change-cautious. Or maybe change-skeptical. Change-intentional? I like to have a good reason to change, OK? And just, "it's new!" doesn't qualify as a good reason in my book. So looking over my iGoogle page caused me to wonder, "Do I need to add anything new here?" And the answer was no, I didn't feel like it lacked for anything important. Which got me to thinking about what does cause me to change. What is a good enough reason? The answer that immediately popped into my head was: "Other people."

I was flabbergasted. If you asked anyone who knew me to make a list of my personality traits, "people-pleaser" wouldn't make the top 200. And since "argumentative," "stubborn," and um, "forthright" would probably be in the top ten, I have a certain amount of sympathy for anyone who tries to make me to change something.

Nonetheless, other people are usually involved when I decide to change something. The scenario usually goes like this: I see someone in need. In examining the situation, I see a change that I could make that would likely improve matters. The change gets made.

For example, the reason I share a calendar with my husband on iGoogle is because I used to hand him a paper calendar every month and that became really difficult for him to keep track of. Plus my schedule is often kind of up in the air, so I had to hand him frequent updates and even though his schedule is usually fairly regular, I had a hard time remembering it, and blah! It all just became much easier with a shared web solution.

Realistically, of course, I'm often solving my own problems at the same time, but I find it harder to see my problems. Forest for the trees, I suppose. Paradoxically, I seem to need to see another person's problem with my own eyes in order to respond, rather than just believing them when they tell me about it. So I guess it's a good thing to keep my eyes open.

What did you see today?

I saw a discussion of repatriation attempts during the Holocaust

2009-06-01T17:42:00.007-05:00

Context
I am reading the proceedings of Second Yad Vashem International Historical Conference in a volume entitled Rescue Attempts during the Holocaust. You can purchase this book through the Yad Vashem website, but I'm not sure how many mainstream booksellers have it. I got my copy at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. Currently I'm reading a report on attempts by President Roosevelt and others to repatriate European Jews during the Holocaust period. The only successful massive migration took place after the war, when Britain loosened restrictions on entering Palestine. Shortly thereafter, the state of Israel was born.

Commentary
I bought this book after touring the Holocaust Museum because frankly, I was depressed. For as long as I've been aware of the Shoah (the TV miniseries The Holocaust was my first exposure) the question has tortured me: why didn't anybody do anything? So I needed to cling to the idea that someone tried.

I didn't actually start reading the book until ten years later, which is probably a good thing. Notice that the title isn't "Successful Rescue Attempts during the Holocaust." It's interesting reading, but not exactly inspirational.

I find myself particularly puzzled by this chapter on repatriation, because it keeps being couched as a solution to the Jewish "problem". What I keep asking myself is, "How did this happen?" Germany (and Poland and Hungary, etc.) was the Jews' home; how did they become a "problem" that needed solving? The answer is as simple as it is chilling: they became a problem because the dominant culture decided they were. From that point on, no amount of "See here now, old fellow, you're being irrational," could save a single person from the concentration camps, so the rest of the world was forced to adopt the "solving the Jewish problem" approach.

Which brings me to the Palestinians. It is considered something of an internet truism that once you bring comparisons to Nazism into any argument you've lost it (quick capsule of this idea here), but I'm going to claim my right as an historian (B.A. 1987, Rice University) to say that no situation is ever completely unprecedented, and valid historical comparisons are educational regardless of the emotional content behind them. So, onward!

For various reasons, the state of Israel has decided that Palestinians are a problem and that they don't want them anywhere near Israeli citizens. This is remarkably similar to the early rhetoric the Nazi regime used about the Jews.

Just to be clear, here's what I'm not saying: I don't believe the Israelis have any intention of sending the Palestinians to concentration camps and exterminating them. I'm also not saying that Israel doesn't have legitimate security concerns about at least some of the Palestinians living in their midst.

But here's what I am saying: if you time-warped a person from the Warsaw ghetto to some of areas Palestinians live in today, he/she would see some points of commonality. I'm also saying this: very few people start off intending to be an oppressor. They start off defending themselves from a perceived threat. From there it takes very few steps to decide that it's appropriate to do whatever you have to in order to "solve your problem."

What did you see today?

I saw an older European-American man driving poorly

2009-04-20T17:37:00.011-05:00

Context
In Shreveport, I-20 West has an off ramp that merges into northbound Common Street. As I was traveling north on Common this morning, one of the cars on this ramp failed to yield to oncoming traffic like it was supposed to. When I looked at the driver of the vehicle, I saw that he was an older European-American, and that he was looking down at the seat next to him rather than watching where he was going. I said "Sir!" in an exasperated tone as I swerved around him. At least one of the cars behind me, which had to swerve even more, honked at him.

Commentary
My theories as to what happened with the guy this morning all center around him not realizing he was sliding into traffic. In other words, he thought he had a moment or two to glance at his papers or his phone or whatever before he would have to pay attention to other cars, but he didn't. But that's not what I want to talk about. I want to talk about white privilege.

I am not a road-ragey type. This is one of the few areas in my life where I actually hew pretty closely to the Quaker peace testimony. I do not honk my horn in anger, only in warning or greeting. When my fellow drivers do something irritating, I usually just say or yell something in the privacy of my own vehicle and it usually isn't even profane or insulting. Something along the lines of "C'mon!" or "Seriously?" If I'm particularly irked I'll emulate my dad, who used to say "Well, friend . . . " in a very sarcastic tone. This is pretty funny in light of the fact that my dad was not a Quaker but a Baptist, but I digress.

However, I don't recall ever saying "Sir" before. Now maybe it's just because I live in Louisiana, where "yes, sir" and "no ma'am" have been codified into law. But I don't think so. I think it's because the driver was older than me, which definitely does deserve some respect, and because he was white and male, which doesn't necessarily.

So I guess my new mandate in the fight for equality is to refer to every bad driver, without prejudice, as sir or ma'am. Wish me luck!

What did you see today?

I heard a guiding principle

2009-04-11T14:20:00.014-05:00

Context
In my Friends meeting today we were discussing guiding principles for life, things that help us decide what path to take in a given situation. One woman said she goes by "always take the easiest path," but upon further consideration she decided it was more like, "always take the path with the most fun."

Commentary
"Always take the path with the most fun" reminds me of football. The old season is two months gone and the new season is four months away and still things remind me of football. Whatcha gonna do?

Anyway, for about the past ten years, the NFL has had an "instant replay rule" (details here) which allows referees to take a look at video of a just completed play to see if they made the correct call or not. I often tell my husband they should change this rule to favor not the "correct" call but the "most fun" call.

I'm not serious. I know this wouldn't work because the main goal of professional football and most other organized sports is to create a set of objective standards (move the ball a certain distance, prevent the other team from moving the ball, catch the ball within the confines of the field of play, etc.) and award a "win" to whichever team does the best job of conforming to them. Since football has a lot of these standards, you need a person whose job is to very precisely evaluate each team's performance for compliance with all of them. That's your referee, or in the case of big-time football, your whole officiating team.

However, I think my proposal does fit in well with some of the NFL's ancillary goals. It's supposed to be sports entertainment, after all, so fun should come in somewhere. I also think most professional sports organizations like to promote a certain amount of parity, because a good close game makes it more likely that people will watch the whole thing. If referees started awarding questionable calls to whichever team was losing, it might very well make the game more fun.

It might make for interesting coaching strategies as well: "let's not take the lead yet. Let's try for a couple of 'most fun' calls." Hmm. How do you think that would work as a guiding principle for life?

What did you hear today?

I saw a DVD on harassment and discrimination

2009-04-03T17:49:00.006-05:00

Context
The Technical Services division of my library had its annual training on discrimination and harassment in the workplace today. Interspersed with watching a DVD called Without Regard we had some commentary and discussion time. At one point while we were discussing discrimination one of my co-workers made, I think without realizing it, a blatantly discriminatory remark about the suitability of men and women for a particular job. A little later on, when the HR director was talking about the potential harm caused by jokes, I thought to myself, "people are just being silly if they get offended when we do stuff like that."

Commentary
I don't have much to say about the situation today. Instead I want to say something else about Matthew 7:1-5: it is a quality of sinners that if it's wrong we don't think we do it (my coworker), and if we do it, we don't think it's wrong (me).

What did you see today?

I saw compliments on something I did

2009-04-01T19:33:00.005-05:00

Context
I've spent some time this week contributing to a wiki composed of information on using a piece of software called Symphony by SirsiDynix. Today, a couple of people on an e-mail list devoted to the same subject complimented my work. I cannot link to either my contributions or their comments because that information is proprietary to SirsiDynix.

Commentary
The compliments I received got me to thinking about what motivates us to take extra effort. I mean, I wasn't expecting compliments when I sent my files to the wiki; I thought my contribution was way too mired in minute detail to be of much use.

The subject of motivation has interested me since high school. I think it came to my attention for two reasons. One was a book my dad was reading called Analyzing Performance Problems, or You Really Oughta Wanna, which broke down motivation to a very neat set of flow charts. If only real-world management was so easy!

The other was a class I took my freshman year of high school on comparative economic systems. This was not a "capitalism good, communism bad!" class, it was a legitimate comparison of the merits and drawbacks of these two major systems and other economic theories. In fact, I think the evenhandedness of it was what caused some of my fellow students to think our teacher was herself a communist, but I never got that impression.

I came away from that class thinking that communism was a lovely theory that could never work. Ideally it would be nice if we could all work for the common good, but it was not realistic to expect human beings to be motivated by altruism. As a strong believer in sin, I still think that's true.

Over time, though, I've come to realize that communist theory is more subtle than that. It doesn't expect altruism, it expects faith. If you believe that Karl Marx's view of human interactions is correct and/or morally superior, than you will be motivated to implement his theories. The same thing actually applies to capitalism and Adam Smith.

So what was my motivation to contribute to the wiki? Well, I had some faith that the material I contributed would be welcomed. OK, someone actually asked me to send it in, which was enough to inspire some confidence.

I guess I also believe in collaborative efforts in general. Not all of them, and I sometimes think wikis bring out the worst aspects of "writing by committee," but I'm often convinced that three hundred heads are better than one.

Finally, I believe that if you can help someone out, that's worth some extra effort. Wait, does that mean I'm a communist?

What did you see today?

I heard about no-win situations

2009-03-06T17:08:00.006-06:00

Context
My boss and I were talking about situations where you "catch more flies with honey than vinegar," and he mentioned one where there's nothing you can say that won't get you in trouble: "should I eat this?", when spoken by a girlfriend. I said, "yup, and the ever-popular 'does this make me look fat?'"

Commentary
I'm not going to talk about body-image issues. It is, frankly, too easy a target and I don't think I have anything new to contribute to it. Instead I'm going to make a heartfelt plea that we stop asking questions of our significant others that we should be answering ourselves. And it's not just straight women. People of every conceivable type of romantic interest set these little traps (hopefully unintentionally!) for the people they supposedly like.

Take "does this make me look fat?" First of all, this question implies that what you look like is somehow the fault of an inanimate object. Also, you're asking someone outside yourself to create an objective reality for you. No matter how she or he answers, that answer is supposed to stand in for everyone else in the world, including you.

At the very least, make this a question that encompasses only one person's opinion: "do you think I look fat when I wear this?" Before you ask a question like this, though, you should probably prepare yourself for one of three answers:

1) I have no opinion. The sad fact of life is if you're asking a straight male the question, this is likely the answer. Men may be partial to or repulsed by how some small subset of our garments look on us, but face it, when we own the same pair of shoes in navy and black, we can't even tell the difference ourselves most mornings.

2) Yes. This means your significant other thinks this is an unflattering garment. Or that he/she likes you fat. Nothing more. It is not a reflection on the entire history of your relationship.

3) No. This may potentially mean your partner disagrees with you on how flattering this item is.

So how do you deal with this disagreement? Go with your own opinion (oh well, I don't like it anyway, off to Goodwill)? Then why did you ask? Go with their opinion (OK, I'll keep it then, just as a present to you)? Actually, this is not a bad way to train your significant other to be honest, because if she/he is not, you're going to end up with a lot of clothes neither of you can stand! Honestly reassess your opinion in light of partner's, but still make up your own mind? Heavens! How insanely well-adjusted of you!

As for the "should I eat this?" question, I think it is far more easily dispensed with. There are only three circumstances under which you should be asking ANYONE this question:

1) You have been presented with something that for cultural reasons you don't know the purpose of. If someone gives you a definitive answer either way, do what they say.

2) You are under 14. In this case you should give some credence to the answer, especially if you have documented food sensitivities.

3) You are asking a registered dietician, in which case you can ask for the advice but still make up your own mind.

In every other situation grownups are expected to know how to feed themselves. Even female grownups with body-image issues.

What did you hear today?

I saw an article about a crime

2009-02-18T13:07:00.005-06:00

Context
I read an article from yesterday's Shreveport Times today. It may be at this link, or it may not, depending on how long they archive the material. The article concerned the murder of a local woman, Ashley Scott, by her husband in Tennessee. Here is a direct quote from this article:

"Stephens said there were signs of domestic violence -- Ashley would wear heavy makeup or high collars to hide bruises -- and concerns by faculty. But when he talked to Ashley, offering Employee Assistance Program help, she said, 'Everything will be OK.'

Said Stephens: 'I don't think anybody realized how bad it was, how bad it was getting.'

It was, Stephens now realizes in hindsight, 'this perfect facade of a relationship.'"

"Stephens" is the principal at the school where Mrs. Scott taught.

Commentary
I understand that Mr. Stephens is under an extraordinary amount of pressure, but I feel compelled to point out that although his first statement is likely factual, the second one is mistaken at best and the third one is an outright lie. If you see a woman dressing to cover the signs of spousal abuse, you know exactly how bad it is, and she and her husband are not maintaining anything resembling a perfect facade of a relationship.

So why say it? I think it's likely that Stephens has heard, possibly more than once, or maybe just in the privacy of his own head, this accusation: "if you knew what was going on, why didn't you stop it?" So he backs off, pretends he didn't know what was going on. It's a more palatable answer than what seems to be the truth, "she wouldn't let me."

I blame the afterschool specials. The media has done such a good job of convincing us that domestic violence is a simple situation involving one monster and one victim that we think curing the problem should be equally simple. Just walk away. Accept the help an outsider offers you.

But real life isn't like that. Abuse is only part of a relationship. It may be a constant part or an intermittent one, but it's still only one element. And the person who's being abused may not see it as important enough to outweigh all the other elements.

My father used to hit my mother. Not regularly, but certainly more than once. I know I just wrote that in a universally accessible blog, but up until this moment I have kept that information relatively close to the chest. My close friends know; I've told church groups I was close to, but I've never made a big announcement or been all crusady about it.

I think one of the reasons I'm reluctant to talk about it is because I'm wary of the oversimplifications. The stereotypes I'm accustomed to don't fit the situation. My mother was neither too stupid to know what was going on nor too helpless to walk away. She was a woman who weighed her alternatives and made her decisions. And forgive me for straying off the P.C. ranch, but she wasn't always particularly nice to my dad either.

The conditions did not match Ashley Scott's. My father never cut my mother off from her friend and relatives and her life was never in danger. But if I'm really, really honest, I have to admit that the two people I'm ashamed to have never discussed this with are my mother and my father. Would it have helped? Can a daughter actually say to her parents, "your relationship is really screwed up and I think you both could make better decisions"? They're both gone now so I'll never know.

And now Ashley Scott is gone as well and we're all left feeling like there's something more we could have done . . .

What did you see today?

I saw a group of unfaithful people

2009-02-08T08:10:00.006-06:00

Context
I had a dream this morning. It started in a church. I was there with my husband and I had decided I wasn’t interested in the proceedings, so I went by myself to an area in the rear where the pews were turned backwards and I could hang out without really paying attention to what was going on.

After a time a woman rose up to speak to the church. She said that she and a group of others were going to leave the church, which was called Nassaret, because of its teachings. I was interested in this development, so I looked over the back of my pew to see the power point presentation she was doing.

She mentioned several offensive things that had been said at Nassaret, including that it was OK to look at nudity. None of the things she said were preachings that would bother me in a church, but even though I didn’t agree with her I remember admiring the zeal behind her words.

After a time I saw the separatist group again. They were readying a boat, so I guess they were planning a major geographic exodus, rather than just starting another church nearby. I met some of the other people involved in the movement, including a drummer who was playing some music for people to work by. Now that I’m awake and remembering this dream, I realize that the drummer was the administrator of a nursing home where I do some volunteer work.

Another period of time passed and as I was going down a street near my house I saw the drummer again, drumming between orange cones that had been set in the street to reserve the lane for her. I was dismayed because I realized this meant the group hadn’t separated themselves at all. Sure enough, following the cones I found that they were part of a fundraising effort and they led back to the boat the group had been preparing. There were tons of people on board, including all the separatists and all the people from Nassaret.

I found the woman who had started the movement and asked her what had happened. She said they had found out they didn’t really need to create a schism and everything was going to be all right. Suspicious, I asked who had told her so. She said, “He’s right here!” and took me into another room to meet him. “This is Senator [Something] Neutral.” As soon as I saw him my suspicions were concerned. He was a servant of the devil.

“Nice to see you again,” I said, putting out my hand to shake. He shook it and said, “likewise.” Then I said, “begone!” and he said a phrase I didn’t know, presumably “bite me” in some ancient language.

“Begone!” I said again, and he gave no response. “Do you really want me to say it a third time, with the puff of smoke and everything?” He shrugged.

“Begone!” I said and he did in fact disappear in a puff of smoke.

The former leader of the separatist group was appalled. “I’m going to have you put in jail!”

“Do it! For God’s sake!” I said this in anger, and then stopped because it seemed an inappropriate time to be using the Lord’s name in vain. Then I realized I really was speaking for God’s sake so it wasn’t in vain. I said it again, “For God’s sake!” A third time, and deadly serious. “For God’s sake, follow through on one thing you promise Him you’ll do!” Then I woke up.

Commentary
I believe this dream came from God so it doesn't require a lot of commentary, but I do have a couple of things to say.

It was a dream, so my conscious mind may have changed some aspects in order to make it work as a narrative. I do clearly remember the exchange with the Senator and the final thing I said to the woman is a verbatim transcription.

I don't know if this dream is for me or for someone else. I can't think of anything I've backslid on recently, but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened. If it is for you then I'm glad to have supplied it.

In Revelation 3:16 God says, "because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I am about to spit you out of my mouth."

What did you see today?

I saw a cartoon

2009-02-02T14:09:00.013-06:00

Context
Carolyn Hax writes a daily advice column for the Washington Post called "Tell Me About It." It's a daily column, but the Shreveport Times only carries it on Sundays. Yesterday, they printed the Friday column, which you can find at this link (may require registration). The column usually has a cartoon, not done by Carolyn herself, that summarizes the problem being described.

Commentary
Yes, despite my stated objections to registering for the Washington Post, I actually broke down and did so for the purpose of bringing you the link posted above. I hope you're happy.

Actually, I'm happy because now that I've found out that Carolyn writes every day, I'll probably be reading her every day. I like advice columns in general and I'm particularly fond of Carolyn's because I think she takes a very straightforward approach to problem-solving.

But I wanted to talk about the cartoon. If you're not able to look at the link, you'll have to take my word for the fact that it seems to depict two African-American characters. Carolyn herself is European-American and I have no idea of the racial identity of the advice-seeker in question. In fact, the characters in the cartoons on Tell Me About It seem to regularly cycle through the physical characteristics of various races and that got me to wondering if that actually helps people of different ethnicities identify with the advice Carolyn gives.

To be fair, it seems to be a general assumption that we make. When deciding issues as varied as who to cast in a TV show and whether to celebrate Black History Month, some consideration is given to the idea that people need to see someone who looks like them in order to identify with them.

But is this really true? I don't think it is for me. I'm more likely to identify with someone who has the same personality characteristics I do than someone who looks like me. Here's an example: Stephen King's book The Stand has twelve main characters (and dozens of minor ones, but I digress), three of whom are female and to my very picky standards quite well-written. I don't identify with any of them. Instead I identify with three of the male characters, one because he's a constant screw-up (Peter is my patron saint), one because of the challenges he has to surmount to achieve his destiny, and one because he's an intellectual.

My Quaker meeting, which has no African-American attenders, invited several black women to come talk to us a couple of years ago about ending racism. What I remember most clearly from the discussion was one lady saying she was dismayed that teachers at her son's school thought he wouldn't be interested in certain activities because he'd be the only black kid in attendance. Since then I've resolved to never make assumptions about a person's preferences based on their physical appearance. There may be some cultural characteristics that many black people share, but I think we go seriously astray if we assert that all people with dark skin identify with all of them. Our choices aren't based on how we look; they're based on who we are.

What did you see today?

I saw an item that was cataloged correctly

2009-01-16T17:38:00.004-06:00

Context
I was looking at new children's books in my library's catalog and noticed that two picture books had parts of their titles on the spine labels instead of parts of their author's last name. Using the title on a spine label is a standard practice for items where no single author is immediately obvious, but since I could see the author's name in the same catalog record, I didn't understand why it wasn't being used.

When I asked the head cataloger about the discrepancy, she said they were marked that way because the "author" was an illustrator, not a writer, and "the rules" said that was how she was supposed to do it. After some discussion we decided to throw out the rules in favor of letting these very similar books be next to each other on the shelf.

Commentary
Have your eyes glazed over yet? I told you it takes special skills to be a librarian, one of which is actually caring about this stuff! And if you want to see some people who really care, you should take a look at the recent PUBLIB discussion on "Dewey or don't we?" (starts here, ongoing as of this writing).

I believe my discussion with the head cataloger today was generally more rational and fruitful than the Dewey discussion, which got me thinking about how people argue (Yay, she's not going to talk about cataloging anymore!). A lot of the Dewey discussion seems to follow this template: "X is what happens to me when I go to a bookstore; this experience should cause all public libraries to respond by doing Y."

I'm not saying that talking about one's own experience is bad; I'm confused by the assumption that personal experience is so generalizable. Why do we believe, despite mounds of contrary evidence, that other people experience things the exact same way we do? I didn't go to the head cataloger today and say, "I couldn't find both of these books when I wanted them; we must recatalog them right away!" Conversely, she didn't say, "when I go to libraries that don't catalog by the rules I can't find anything!" Instead we discussed what the rule was and whether we thought it would generally be helpful to bend it under this particular circumstance.

This kind of tunnel vision not only makes it hard to find solutions, it can make it difficult to see that you're even having a disagreement. I've had this exchange with more than one person:

Me - My opinion on this matter is different from yours.

Not Me - No, no, I'm just not explaining myself properly. What I mean to say is . . .

Me - I understand what you're saying. I just disagree with you.

Now, I see that this may just be good manners at work, a belief that it's not polite to argue with someone. But I also see an undercurrent of "any rational person possessed of the same facts I have would come to the same conclusion." I think it's related to the instinct people have to say, when confronted with the fact that I'm anti-death penalty, "but what if someone murdered your loved one? Wouldn't you want revenge?" When I'm in a certain mood I'm tempted to reply, "Oh my God! I've never thought of that! You've completely opened my eyes! Thank you, thank you, thank you!"

What did you see today?

I saw announcements about the Inauguration

2009-01-15T20:50:00.007-06:00

Context
I was reading PUBLIB again today, and people were talking about setting up TV sets at their libraries for patrons to watch the President-elect Obama's inauguration ceremony. You can see an example of what I'm talking about at this link.

Commentary
I like this idea of providing a communal space to watch the Inauguration. My bachelor's degree was in history, so I know the importance of sharing these events with each other.

That being said, I have no plans to watch the Inauguration and I certainly don't intend to head out for Washington to attend. I like Obama and voted for him, but the whole inauguration party thing just makes me go "meh."

Some of this can be attributed to the fact that I'm not a very social person, so being in a crowd with a couple million of my closest friends is not very attractive to me. Plus I don't care much for parades except the Tournament of Roses (everything's made of flowers! What's not to like?). I figure the highlight of the day will be Obama's speech and I'm sure that will be both recorded and described. Shoot, I'm sure they'll hit all the high points on The Daily Show, so what else do I need?

I guess another thing that's going on is I wish we weren't treating this as so much of a big deal. I won't claim to "not see color" like Stephen Colbert (Wow! How many references to Comedy Central can I put in one blog post?), but I do try to not see people in Jim Crow terms, where one drop of black blood makes you black. Aren't we inaugurating both our first black president and our 44th white one?

On the other hand, if we're going to talk about Obama being black I don't want this to be a rare occasion. The bigger the fuss we make the more it seems that way, like we're not accustomed to the idea that African-Americans can actually flourish in our nation. Barry Sanders is famous in the football world for NOT celebrating his touchdowns. He always just handed the ball to the ref and went back to the bench. Why? Because he always knew there was another one coming up soon! What if we behaved that way in regard to having an African-American president? Just the first of many . . .

Here's what I think is the biggest deal about the Inauguration: how embarrassing is it that the United States elected its first black president 15 years after after South Africa did?

What did you see today?

I saw a story I'd written

2008-12-24T11:23:00.009-06:00

Context
I had a dream about James Bond last night, which caused me to write a very brief piece of fanfic about it. Out of respect for both copyright and the bounds of taste (it's pretty graphic) it will remain on my computer, out of the public eye. In my dream Daniel Craig appeared as James Bond and Dame Judy Dench, was M.

Commentary
Chalk one up to marketing that I see Daniel Craig as Bond, since I didn't care for Casino Royale and didn't bother with Quantum of Solace. I guess I like him in theory, not practice.

Writing fanfic is interesting. One of the reasons my piece is so short is that I didn't have to do any of the heavy lifting. Character, scene, and even plot are already set out by Ian Fleming and the screenwriters who've adapted his work. So I was left to devote 159 words to a brief glimpse into the character's psyche.

Which leads me to the importance of books, or at least written stories. Over the past couple of years I have encountered a couple of people who never read books, which always calls to mind a quote that is apparently misattributed to Mark Twain: "Those who don't read have no advantage over those who can't."

Anyway, it is my impression that these people get all their stories (and everybody needs stories, make no mistake about it) from movies and television. Video is a fine medium for storytelling, but as I learned from my brief foray into fiction writing, it's not good for talking about interior working of someone's brain. Charlie Kaufman does as good a job as he can, but sometimes metaphor is no substitute for just being able to say, in plain English, "this is what the character's thinking."

Apparently the written word isn't always effective, either. When my husband read the story I wrote he said, "that's not Bond. Fleming never wrote him that way." Even when I told him I wasn't trying to write in Fleming's style, just using his character, he wasn't convinced. From my husband's perspective James Bond's mind works however Fleming says it does. Maybe that's the consequence of not doing any of your own heavy lifting.

What did you see today?

I saw the price of gas

2008-11-22T14:46:00.008-06:00

Context
Thus far the poor economy has not affected me much, as both my husband and I are employed and don't plan on retiring soon. However, I keep an eye on the price of gas as an economic indicator. It's falling like a rock around here, down below $1.70 a gallon in some places.

Commentary
In some ways I know falling gas prices are like the silver lining to the current economic situation, but even when it benefits us personally deflation is a problem in a free market economy. It indicates a lack of demand, which indicates a lack of growth, which leads to more job loss and credit problems.

So this got me thinking about who else in the United States' economy is dealing with falling demand. The Big 3 auto companies who are requesting a bailout from Congress, that's who. And this is not just an economic indicator to me. I have an emotional connection to the fate of General Motors because my dad worked there from the time he left the Air Force until his retirement over 30 years later.

Ever since I became an adult I've looked at GM differently than my dad, because he was a Republican and I'm so liberal that even the Democratic party doesn't satisfy. He died several years ago so I can't ask, but I imagine he would feel some ambivalence about the proposed buyout. He'd probably be generally in favor of it but have some choice words on the side for corporate folks who had mismanaged the company into this position in the first place. He might have even loaned a slightly sympathetic ear to the people who say General Motors should declare Chapter 11 bankruptcy just for the opportunity to stick it to the United Auto Workers. By the way, as the daughter of an executive, it's weird for me to see management and labor so united on something. Well, sort of. This is the UAW's take on the situation.

Anyway, that was my speculation about what a specific conservative would think, here's what this specific liberal thinks: government should not be helping business; it should be helping people. A lot of the pro-bailout rhetoric emphasizes that helping the Big 3 would help people, but I'm not completely convinced. At the very least, I would not hand automakers a blank check, either in terms of amount or conditions. When I'm in a really ticked off mood I think, "if this industry is so important to our nation's wellbeing we should nationalize it." So there!

In the end I'm hoping for one relatively minor silver lining to this whole mess. As a government employee, I'm sick to death of people saying my agency should be run more like a business. So at least I can say to the next person who proposes it, "like what business? GM?"

What did you see today?

I heard a loud motorcycle

2008-11-19T13:09:00.004-06:00

Context
I heard a motorcycle while I was driving today that sounded like it had no muffler at all. I think the noise it was creating could be considered a violation of the Shreveport noise ordinance (Chapter 58, Article II at this link), but I can't be sure. Loud motorcycles are very common in Shreveport.

Commentary
Loud motorcycles bug me. I often feel like saying to the rider in question "yes, I get it. You have a motorcycle. Is it possible for you to enjoy the experience without imposing it on me?"

As I read the above I realize that I'm asking for someone to repress a very strong natural impulse: the sharing of joy. There are quiet pleasures, surely, but often when we're happy we want as many people as humanely possible to know about it. That's why we invite 300 people to watch us get married.

Or is it? Sometimes when I read about insane wedding extravaganzas, I feel like the couple in question is showing off. Or being insecure. Or possibly both. This may apply to the loud motorcyclists in question: "how can I really believe my motorcycle is cool if people don't look at me while I'm riding it?" Or maybe they're trying to be annoying as part of the bad-ass motorcycle experience.

Because we're talking about noise here, it's hard for me to communicate my response to the rider, which is roughly this:

1) That's a nice bike.

2) I would prefer to enjoy it visually, not audibly.

3) You're not bad-ass. You're annoying. There's a subtle but important difference.

4) Enjoy!

I'm going to try to come up with a series of gestures that communicate all of these things while I'm sitting at a stoplight.

What did you hear today?

I saw a man not vote

2008-11-04T19:25:00.009-06:00

Context
There was a long line at my polling place today at 6:30 a.m., so while I was waiting I had a chance to see an African-American man talking with the European-American guy who was the only election commissioner with a cell phone. It appeared to be the latter's job to check for other possible polling locations for those not registered in my precinct. He apparently found nothing helpful, because he sent the petitioner away with phone numbers for the parish registrar of voters and the secretary of state.

Commentary
I could talk about voter fraud and racism today because I think both of those might have been at play in the situation I observed, but it seems only fair to note what my husband said, which is that the African-American man might have been just inquiring about his polling place, not actually attempting to vote at that time. So I think I'll just focus on perception.

My perception of the situation today was, "that's what happens when we're concerned about voter fraud. People get turned away from the polls." Which led me to think about ACORN.

I'm embarrassed to admit I believed the soundbites about ACORN (sample here). I believed that some members of the organization had been so rabid about recruiting new voters for Barack Obama that they had filed fraudulent registrations in the hopes of somehow turning those registrations into actual votes. I also believed that external institutions had unearthed those registrations before the scam went too far along. I wasn't concerned about the situation for two reasons: 1) I know that many legitimate registrations do not translate to votes, and 2) I know that every organization that tries to do some good ends up with some bad apples.

Now that I've done some research at factcheck.org, I've realized that even my relatively benign beliefs about ACORN were incorrect. Most of the bad registrations in question were flagged by ACORN itself because after collecting them by state law they were required to file them. That's actually how we keep organizations like this from becoming partisan machines. They're required to file every registration, even the ones they'd rather not. More important to me, as perceptions go, is the fact that the frauds weren't perpetrated by people trying to influence the elections. They were done by people trying to make money without doing the requisite work.

So as I said, I'm embarrassed. But I'm more angry. I only found these things out today after I got started thinking about voter fraud and started to do some research. And the only reason I was thinking about voter fraud was because of the ACORN soundbites. After reading up on the situation and talking with my incredibly intelligent husband, I realized that I should have been thinking about why we pay people to collect registrations in the first place. Have we been making voter registration too difficult? Have we made the results of voting insufficiently valuable to be worth people's while (I'm a liberal living in Louisiana. Due to the Electoral College, my presidential vote almost never counts. Why do I keep showing up at my crowded polling place? Hard to say . . .)?

The above are important questions for us to consider. But we never will if we keep letting the soundbites guide our thinking. If we keep thinking it's nice legitimate voters vs. evil fraudulent voters or rotten people who want to disenfranchise the poor vs. saintly volunteer registrars going door-to-door. We need to change our perceptions. We need to open our eyes.

What did you see today?

I saw a comment on things I own

2008-10-02T19:13:00.009-05:00

Context
Slashdot had an article today on rumored toxic fumes emanating from Mac Pro computers. In the comments following the story, one person states that it's the smell of smugness and another adds that the smell would be particularly bad if an Apple got anywhere near a Prius. I own both an Apple and a Prius.

I found an online definition of "smugness" that said it was the state of being self-satisfied, but my print dictionary says it's being "offensively self-satisfied."

Commentary
Ever since my husband and I drove our Prius off the lot, I have heard comments like this from people I know: "you must be feeling pretty smart knowing how much less you're paying for gas than the rest of us." Actually, I'm not paying significantly less as I drive more than most of the people I know, but that's neither here nor there. These comments hurt my feelings because, probably without meaning to, the people in question are saying that when I have an advantage over someone my first instinct is to lord it over him/her. Smugly.

What's even more distressing is when someone I don't even know asserts the same thing. I was driving down Westheimer Road in Houston a few weeks ago and someone in a pickup truck yelled rude things at me because I was driving a Prius. He was actually objecting to my gas mileage, as if I was somehow using a hybrid engine with the express intent of showing him up.

These reactions confuse me. My assumption is that people make rational decisions about what to drive (and blog on) based on their personal situation: what they can afford, what's important to them (nobody ever seems to comment on the low emissions from my Prius, which was the main reason I bought it), what fits in with the rest of their lives. The funny thing is, people seem to be saying that they'd like to make the decision I did, they just don't feel able to. If that's the case, I sympathize with their frustration. Or does that sound smug?

What did you see today?

I saw descriptions of barred patrons

2008-09-09T15:50:00.011-05:00

Context
We sometimes bar people from entering our library. I was looking over the descriptions of these patrons today and many of them included the following: black male; black hair; brown eyes.

Commentary
Why yes, I am going to talk about racism today but perhaps not in the fashion you're expecting. As I read these descriptions today I was trying to figure out if it's redundant to say "black male" and "black hair and brown eyes," given that these characteristics are true of the vast majority of black males. Not all, of course, but many. On the other hand, when you're giving a description of someone it's a bad idea to make any assumptions.

Which brings me to something we frequently talk about when discussing racism: the belief that all black people look alike to white people. This isn't strictly true of me, but it is true that I often have trouble distinguishing between people who have chocolate-colored skin and black hair.

I'm not being disingenuous. I don't know if it's because I'm white or I was raised wrong or I have weird cultural touchstones, but when I first meet people the first physical characteristics I look at are skin color, hair color, age, height and weight. And by "age, height and weight" I mean "relative to me." So I have found myself in the situation where I met two dark-skinned ladies with black hair who were taller, wider and older than me and was unable to distinguish them until I got to know them better. They also happened to be black. In my defense, as a person who teaches a lot of senior citizens, there are a number of light-skinned, grey-haired, older/shorter/thinner than me women I can't tell apart, either.

Certainly the situation becomes much less dire-looking if we remove the word "black" from the description of people we can't tell apart. In fact, is this a case where overgeneralization is running in the opposite direction? Is the problem that all black people look alike to me? Or is the problem that when two people with some similar characteristics look alike to me the assumption arises that I see all black people as being the same? Or worse, that all white people see all black people as being the same?

What did you see today?

I saw an internet exchange about Second Life

2008-09-08T13:10:00.010-05:00

Context
An e-mail I was reading today drew me to a blog on the American Library Association website called ALA Marginalia. On this post, both the main body and the comments caught my eye, because they contained a discussion of the accessibility of Second Life.

Second Life is a virtual world online where you can create an avatar and do stuff. I can't be any more specific than that because I'm not a member of Second Life.

Commentary
This year marks the second time I apparently neither saw nor heard anything during the month of August. There's a couple of posts during August 2007, but August 2006 is just as forlornly empty as this year. I'm sure that means something.

Second Life creates what seems to me to be a disproportionate amount of buzz in the library world. Workshops in Second Life are held about the special challenges of being a librarian in Second Life. I'm not saying this isn't the appropriate venue or that these challenges don't exist; I'm saying that I never hear anyone except librarians ever talk about Second Life, period.

Although I work in Information Technology I am far from the cutting edge when it comes to new innovations. I have a Facebook page but I never use or even look at it; I have a blog but I don't have a quick RSS feed button attached to it; I've generally find video on the web annoying. There's a difference with these sorts of things, though. I know they exist and I know other people in all kinds of contexts who love them and use them. Second Life produces, as they say in the comedy biz, crickets.

Putting aside ranting, I'm now going to address the comment exchange I said I was interested in. The complaint the 2nd commenter makes is a pretty common one in any world with divided classes. Essentially she's saying, "rich people have access to something others don't." By the way, "rich" here doesn't necessarily mean monetarily wealthy; it can apply to people who are rich in technological knowledge or youth or free time; the complaint remains the same. Anytime this complaint is made, one of the responses is possible:

1) "Too bad, suckers!", which is considered callous.

2) "Yes, we need to provide the benefit to everyone," which is what the blogger here responded (in comment #4) and is considered the progressive answer.

3) "Hmm, maybe we shouldn't bother with this technology if it's out of some people's reach." This is considered a regressive approach.

I'm not an advocate of the classless society. I think there are benefits to competition, some of which I've discussed in an earlier post. I therefore think it's possible to have the #1 response above and not be callous, although it would help to use nicer language.

#2 is lovely and caring-sounding, but also runs the risk of proposing the kind of limitless growth (Everyone is entitled to a big car! And a big house! And lots of meat!) that ultimately threatens our well-being in ways that go beyond just the environmental.

I find #3 particularly challenging. Progress is good, right? It depends; progress toward what? Quakers have a testimony of simplicity in lifestyle and if I scaled back to only those things that were available to everyone I would be living very simply indeed! As it stands, I try to consume luxuries mindfully, seeking to understand both the costs and benefits and to thank the Lord for every blessing that comes my way.

Which brings me back to my personal response to Second Life: I don't see much point in it and can think of many more interesting and productive ways to spend my time. So in my case, it is accessible to me and I don't want it! I would be callous indeed if I didn't recognize how blessed I am to be able to make a choice like that.

What did you see today?

I saw a discussion about analogies

2008-07-24T13:03:00.012-05:00

Context
I was catching up on some e-mail lists today, including the Information Literacy Instruction list. About a month ago a distinguished professor of library science sent the query referenced here to the list, asking about the use of analogies in library instruction. This touched off a long discussion of whether to use analogies at all and if so, which ones are appropriate. The discussion has largely petered out now, but a particular piece of advice, taken from this response really struck me:

Connect to real life experience – think about those common experiences students are likely to share such as shopping, eating, and sleeping. An examination of the common sports and military metaphors used in the teaching of physics and engineering and the disproportionate number of women in those disciplines can help illustrate the need to focus on common experiences.

Commentary
I don't know what to make of the implication here that sports and military metaphors do not reflect the "common experiences" of women. On the one hand, it's certainly reasonable to say that they are more likely to be common experiences for most men than for most women. On the other hand, I and both of my X chromosomes are much likely to understand a sports metaphor than say, a shopping one (I hate shopping with a purple passion!).

There's another underlying assumption here: that not using "common experiences" is bad. I can think of two reasons why that might be the case: students might not understand what you're trying to get across with your analogy, which is not the ideal result of a teaching method, or they might be offended by it, which is not good for any relationship between human beings.

I'm wondering if both of these problems are exacerbated by students' insecurities. I'm a pretty confident student, possibly because I'm also a teacher, so if someone uses an example or a metaphor that I don't understand, I say so and I expect the teacher to come up with a different one. In other words, I see my failure to learn as a problem to be solved, not a personal shortcoming that needs to be covered up.

I think offense works similarly. Certainly I'm offended if someone insults me to my face and I'll often take the bait when someone is deliberately trying to get a rise out of a certain group of people. Most of the time, though, I assume people don't mean to be offensive; they're just ignorant or at worst, insensitive. In both cases, self-confidence helps me address the issue with the offender productively instead of stewing in my own wounded juices. Shoot, in an exchange like that I might even discover that my own assumptions were incorrect!

Touchiness, whininess, and even victimhood sometimes say, "the world sucks and I can't do anything about it." So I guess what I'm advocating is less tiptoeing around a student's potential ignorant or touchy spots and more empowering them to tell us about those spots so we can engage in the learning experience together.

What did you see today?

I heard a co-worker lower her voice

2008-07-11T13:55:00.010-05:00

Context
The Haynesville Shale is a potential rich source of natural gas that's being explored in several parishes in Northern Louisiana. As such, it has been the topic of quite a bit of conversation and controversy. One of my co-workers was talking today about a protest she's seen some people engaging in that has something to do with the Shale. She lowered her voice when mentioning that the protesters involved were black. I said, "hmm," to all her comments.

Commentary
When I say, "hmm," during a conversation, it usually means, "I think I disagree with what you're saying, and I'm deciding whether I should tell you that or not." I mean, some things are not worth arguing about and sometimes I have a relationship with someone that I don't want to mess up with controversy. People who know me well have just read those words and been overcome at the idea that I might possibly avoid an argument, but that's because I argue freely with people I'm close to.

The "lowering your voice to say someone is 'black'" phenomenon is not entirely new to me, but I never get used to it. I used to tease a woman at my husband's former church because she would do it when using "black" as part of a person's physical description. I would say, "you know, it's not embarrassing to be black!" I wonder if she did it because the way we refer to race has gone through so many permutations during her lifetime that she could never be sure she was being mannerly.

In today's case, however, I'm pretty sure I know why my co-worker was lowering her voice. She was doing it because she was saying something derogatory about the protesters and she thought one of the black people we work with might walk into the lunchroom and be offended. What I can't figure out is why she didn't think I would be offended. That's what my "hmm" meant in this case. Something along the lines of "I'm not particularly interested in the topic or tone of this conversation. Next time you feel like you have to lower your voice in order to say something to me, please feel free to to turn it all the way down."

What did you hear today?

I saw a discussion about law enforcement

2008-07-07T18:50:00.008-05:00

Context
Slashdot is a website that bills itself as "News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters." Since I fancy myself a nerd, I have a space on my iGoogle page for an RSS feed from it. Today I was reading this story about the criminal prosecution of a woman who was caught creating fake profiles for herself on MySpace. A word of caution: the Slashdot summary is inoffensive, but the comments, including one I'll be discussing below contain some profanity.

Commentary
Slashdot uses tagging to describe various posts, just like I do on this blog. You see those things that say, variously, "index" or "labels"? Those are tags. You might notice that this particular story on Slashdot is tagged as "badsummary." That's because, as noted in the comments below the story, Lori Drew is not a simple "user" on MySpace. She's an adult woman who said such hurtful things while using a fake profile that portrayed her as a teenage boy that she appears to have induced a teenaged girl to kill herself.

I agree with some of the comments on this article that say things like, "this is a tragedy, but the specific offense (violating a website's Terms of Service) is a civil one, not criminal." I do not, however, agree with this one: "Using fake accounts for access to some websites is de riguer on the internet. Everyone does it for a WIDE variety of reasons (dont want to get caught f*****g someone else, dont want to get caught looking up c4 recipies, dont want to get spam)." And it's not just the bad spelling and grammar that bother me, although they are egregious. It's the fact that no, everyone does not do it. For example, I don't.

From my perspective, if you're doing something (even, gasp, on the Internet!) you either believe it's right or wrong. I can see wanting to hide your identity if you believe you're doing wrong, but I can't see why other people get so up in arms about defending your right to do so. It's like we've added a new component to the Bill of Rights: the right to behave unethically without detection.

Am I against the right to privacy? No, although I think truly believing you can keep your actions secret in today's society is a pipe dream. But I don't think MySpace should be allowed to set up a hidden camera in my bedroom. However, if I set up a webcam in my bedroom and broadcast the contents on MySpace (which also violates their Terms of Service), I think the people providing the server space can reasonably insist that I identify myself. If I don't want to, maybe I shouldn't use their service.

The same goes for the spam consideration. If I believe that using a specific website is likely to get me on a junk e-mail list, I don't use the website! After all, free access to everything you want on your terms isn't guaranteed in the Bill of Rights either.

What did you see today?

I heard a patron express appreciation

2008-07-03T15:42:00.013-05:00

Context
A woman called my workplace today wanting to confirm her reservation of our computer classroom for a group she was sending to the library. She did not, in fact, have a reservation, but I went ahead and made one for her. It was a little later than she wanted because I had to wait for the machines in the classroom to be freed up, as they are used by the general public when no classes are in session. In order to fill the gap between the time the session was due to start and when the computer classroom would be available, I made a reservation for the group to use our meeting room as well.

After the group arrived, they stayed in the meeting room much longer than I expected, so long that they missed their computer classroom reservation entirely. The computer classroom is one floor below my cubicle in the Main Library, so I was called downstairs to resolve the situation, at which point I told the teacher (who was not the lady I had spoken with on the phone) I would try to go upstairs and make another reservation. After I had accomplished this and checked back with the teacher, she said, "I appreciate you."

Commentary
At one workplace or another that I've occupied over my lifetime, there was a sign over someone's desk that said, "Poor planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part." I was irritated with the group today because I felt like they didn't have their act together, and when I bent over backward to get them what they needed anyway, they were too disorganized to take advantage of it! I even suggested to the teacher that she reschedule for another time, rather than continue to make the machines in our computer classroom unavailable to the public, but she wheedled some more reserved time out of me. And then she said she appreciated me. I couldn't help myself; I said, "it was no problem." I just couldn't stay mad after she expressed gratitude.

The library-oriented comic strip Unshelved recently ran this installment, where the protagonist mentions you can get away with saying almost anything about a person if you immediately say, "bless him/her." When I was little, I was taught that "please" and "thank you" were magic words, and today's incident really makes me believe it. I guess on the simplest level I was feeling angry because I thought my efforts weren't being valued, and then they were!

I wonder if a lot of our anger comes from feeling underappreciated. Let's try an experiment: the next time someone's mad at you, try thanking them for something. Or blessing them.

What did you hear today?

I saw a statement about teaching

2008-06-27T18:02:00.015-05:00

Context
I was reading messages on the Information Literacy Instruction mailing list today. A few days ago, a woman asked a question about methods of explaining Library of Congress call numbers. Over time, the discussion has gone off on the tangent of "why you shouldn't bother to teach this material at all." Today I read this message where Joseph Harmon of Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis states, among other things, that he tells students to avoid subject searches because of controlled vocabularies.

Commentary
Well, I've tried to avoid explaining what controlled vocabularies were
in the past, but now I think it's required so you'll understand my response. Controlled vocabulary is a communications concept that basically says people talking about like things should use the same words. Simple, huh? And you can see why it would come in handy.

However, in the library world many thorny issues arise when you're trying to decide which controlled vocabularies to use in your catalog and how to communicate them to your users. These complications are some of the reasons why it takes a master's degree to be a librarian.

I think learning happens best when it fulfills a student's immediate need and relates to her/his personal experience. For example, there's a certain procedure we only have to use at my workplace when the internet goes down. So I tell new employees I'm not going to bother to train them on it, because by the time they need it, they will have forgotten the training. I really believe that throwing predetermined material at people just because "it's in the curriculum" not only wastes time, but also sours some students on the whole idea of education. So I can see why Mr. Harmon might say to himself, "there's no point in covering controlled vocabularies with these students. I'm going to teach them research methods that will speak more to their immediate need and experience."

We can't always limit education this way though, because it discounts two important factors: the teacher's experience and the students' future needs. In the extreme case, you wouldn't wait until your toddler was wandering off into the street to teach him about looking both ways for traffic. He may not have an immediate need when you're explaining this concept at the kitchen table, but your experience tells you it's worth teaching because he'll need it eventually.

Returning to the library instruction arena, I've done a whole lot more computer catalog searches than most non-librarian folk, and I know that subject searches using controlled vocabularies are really useful! Once you understand them, they simplify the research process enormously. So it may be outside your experience and beyond your immediate need now, but if you learn it, you may very well thank me later.

I'm not sure how this relates to my current classes, but I am thinking about how to balance students' immediate needs (which include, of course, the need to not be overloaded with information) with my projections of what their future needs will be. This is particularly hard for me because I don't like to tell people what to do. Even if it's good for them.

What did you see today?

I saw a list of "bad-boy" football players

2008-06-22T16:59:00.009-05:00

Context
I read a column by Tim Dahlberg in today's Shreveport Times in which he discussed the phenomenon of sports team owners so desperate for a win that they'll ignore "character issues" on the part of star players. He singles out three players on the Dallas Cowboys' team for specific mention: Terrell Owens, Adam "Pacman" Jones, and Terry "Tank" Johnson. The Times doesn't appear to have the column on their website, but there's a copy of it over here on MSNBC.

Commentary
Please forgive me. It's June and I have to write about football because I'm not going to be able to watch any for two more months! Even the women's season (go AfterShock!) is over!

"Character issues" is a widely-used euphemism in the sportswriting world. It basically applies to any behavior engaged in by members of a sports organization that you would not want your children to imitate. As such, it applies to a wide range of activities.

For example, police documents relating to Tank Johnson's latest arrest, as reported here, indicate that a large amount of weapons and drugs were found in his home. I won't venture to understand why Johnson took the gun charge and his bodyguard the drug one, because I'm not a member of the Chicago police. Suffice it to say, it is generally frowned upon to collect either weapons or medication illegally in your home. Especially when you're already on probation from another weapons charge.

A short paragraph will not suffice to outline Pacman Jones' "character issues." I'll just mention that the NFL as a body got so tired of owners continuing to employ him after his multiple arrests that they suspended him for the entire season last year. The Dallas Cowboys then hired him to play for them this year.

When I see Terrell Owens' name on a list with the two gentlemen described above, I feel like we're playing a game of "one of these things is not like the others." I'm not saying he hasn't engaged in conduct that some wish he wouldn't. The Philadelphia Eagles suspended him for shooting his mouth off. He engages in touchdown celebrations that the league considers excessive. But he's never been arrested, much less convicted of a crime. In fact, his only encounter with the police was when he had an adverse drug reaction that looked to some like a suicide attempt, an opinion he vigorously disputes.

I understand having to think twice about having Terrell Owens as a member of your football team, and certainly Mr. Dahlberg is entitled to editorialize on his shortcomings in that area. But listing him in the same breath with people who violate the rules of real life, not just the lofty principles of professional football (hee!), seems unfair in the extreme. After all, isn't proportionality in judgment a behavior we would want children to imitate?

What did you see today?

I heard Friends discussing God's nature

2008-06-21T14:03:00.009-05:00

Context
In Friends' meeting today we revisited a traditional topic: does God care about/control everything that happens? I am on the "way yes" side of this argument, but several other attenders view God as taking a more hands-off approach. This discussion, possibly because we live in the South, often centers on whether or not God influences the results of football games.

Commentary
Yes, I think God is involved in football. I don't advocate the use of prayer to try to sway Him one way or the other, but in my opinion He does care. I guess this is because I believe, like Amy Grant, that "we're just here to learn to love Him," so anywhere I learn things, I see God at work.

And I get quite an education from football. How-to-live lessons like: "a good game plan has to have both commitment and flexibility built in," and "the best predictor of ultimate success is your response to failure." Also: "every member of a team contributes to the triumph of the whole."

I also learn about God's creativity. I am awestruck when I watch what football players can do with their bodies, minds and hearts. God created each of those things, so watching is an opportunity to give Him glory.

I think this belief of mine makes particular sense in the context of this blog. After all, the whole point of it is to see God everywhere. Right?

What did you hear today?

I saw an odd post on an e-mail list

2008-06-04T14:11:00.011-05:00

Context
I belong to an e-mail list called PUBLIB, which is directed at public librarians. Threads on subscription e-mail lists like this one usually start with a question or an invitation to offer advice, information or opinions on a particular topic, which are then responded to.

Recently, a library school student named Ron Creswell made various postings to the list (example here). His postings appeared in the form of essays on various topics which had not been prompted by previous discussion. As written, they did not appear to invite further discourse.

Commentary
After receiving three or four of Mr. Creswell's missives, many participants on PUBLIB, including myself, came to the conclusion that he had been given an assignment at library school to participate in an e-mail list. This is a standard assignment, one that is calculated to introduce students to the various modes of communication used by working librarians. It seems unlikely that Ron's instructor intended for him to dump seemingly random ruminations on the profession at large.

Once this conclusion had been drawn, list members' stated opinions of these postings basically broke down into four categories:

1) This guy is an idiot who is posting inappropriate material to the list and wasting our time. He would make a bad librarian.

2) This guy's teachers at library school are idiots for not teaching him the appropriate professional communication skills. They are turning out bad librarians.

3) We should be nice to this guy. Everybody makes mistakes.

4) This is a teachable moment where we could let this guy know where he went astray and what e-mail lists are actually used for.

In a perfect world we would all have had the #4 response. But I didn't. In fact, I remember being in distinct solidarity with the #1 folks, although I didn't post to the list.

As a teacher and a Christian, I find my response appalling. What is it in me that made me see my brother stumbling and decide that screaming and shaking my fist was the appropriate response? Sin, of course, but what specifically was going on?

Well, first off, I wasn't looking at my brother at all. I was looking at how his actions affected me (wasting my time). Then I started thinking, "somebody needs to tell this guy he's making a fool of himself in front of a bunch of people he may be working with someday." Not me, mind you, but "somebody."

This response might fall under the category "diffusion of responsibility." You can find a good explanation of this and other similar sociological phenomena here. I think that given the number of people who participate in PUBLIB who are more eloquent and venerable than me, I just didn't think it was my job to intervene.

So is this humility, appeal to authority (an insane thought if you know me personally), or just a method of avoiding difficult situations? Realistically, it's probably a combination of the three, but I know the third is of no merit and I should do my best to eliminate it from my repertoire.

Well, humility and standing aside are good things, right? Maybe, but it's not like I had nothing to contribute. I was well aware that Mr. Creswell was doing something unwise and I could have said so, maybe privately to him, maybe on the list itself with the aim of building community.

As for the appeal to authority, that actually has a lot of merit if I'm appealing to the correct authority. Ultimately, the student's well-being is not in the hands of his teachers or the list moderators. It's in God's hands. And if you listen to Jewel, you know that our hands are God's hands (listen to the song "My Hands" off the 1998 Spirit album if you don't know what I mean).

What did you see today?

I heard a Friend talk about community reaction.

2008-05-17T14:10:00.012-05:00

Context
My Friends meeting in Texarkana tries to have a "Peace Out" every month. This involves going into the community and doing God's work. As we were brainstorming ideas for next month's Peace Out, we thought of several things that might benefit disadvantaged members of the African-American community. One Friend expressed concern that the beneficiaries might be resentful of "these white ladies" (and we all are) coming in where they're not wanted and doing stuff.

Commentary
I don't know if race influences actions more strongly in the South or if we're just more open about it at Quaker meeting, but the subject does seem to come up fairly regularly when we're talking about the Texarkana community. If I were to try to articulate the resentment my friend was concerned about, I think it might go something like this: "these white ladies have no idea what our lives are like, so it's not possible for them to lend a helping hand without judging us, trying to change us, and generally feeling superior to us. Therefore we don't want them around."

This reaction makes me think about Christianity (OK, a lot of things make me think about Christianity). Christians know that God in fact does judge us, wants us to change, and is superior to us. In the book of Job, God makes it pretty clear that He's unconcerned about our resentment (Start from chapter 38 and go from there. You'll get the idea). However, Jesus' incarnation seems to indicate God thought some empathy might be in order. Either that, or He was removing our last stupid excuse for not heeding His word: "you don't know what I'm going through, God. Your opinion doesn't count." Well, now He knows.

So where does that leave a group of white ladies working in an African-American community? Well, I don't think it's true that we have no idea what people's lives are like. We may not be in the same economic or social circumstances, but I think all of us have felt overwhelmed, oppressed, hopeless, unmotivated, and yes, resentful at some time in our lives. If we can offer the empathy that comes from knowing all of us need help sometimes, then perhaps we'll be doing more than just a good deed. We'll actually be furthering God's kingdom.

By the way, here's my favorite joke about empathy: never judge a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes. That way, when you judge him you'll be a mile away and you'll have his shoes!

What did you hear today?

I saw a waitress trying to do her job.

2008-04-06T17:14:00.004-05:00

Context
I'm still at the SIRSI Superconference. For the second day running, I went to the hotel buffet for breakfast. It was much busier today than yesterday, and unlike yesterday, I didn't ask for anything special to drink. Today when I completed my meal I had to flag someone down and ask her how to get a check because unlike yesterday, I didn't know who my waitress was. The woman who eventually brought my bill was very apologetic.

Commentary
Two blog entries in two days! Conferences are inspirational!

You may think this is going to be another rant about poor customer service, but it's not. It's going to be about something else near and dear to my heart: hog-tying professionals.

I like breakfast buffets, but I think if I was professional waitress they would bug me. First of all, any time you work in concert with self-service you get tipped less ("I did all the work. Why should I tip her?"). But I also think it would get in the way of doing my job. Consider: a good waitress has a routine for getting all her tasks done quickly and efficiently (e.g. get drink orders, bring drinks, get food orders, bring food, check progress of meal, bring check, pick up check, bus table, done). She probably also has an internal clock that tells her approximately how long each of these tasks takes. As customers, part of what we consider good service is that each stage of our meal is neither rushed nor unduly delayed.

Now change the scenario to how a buffet works: the waitress only does some of her tasks and the rest are taken over by people who a) don't really know what they're doing and b) don't follow her standard rhythm at all. And yet she's still expected to know where they are in the routine so she can respond when she is needed. The structures that have been put in place to make the procedure easier for laypeople make it more difficult for her. But we still don't tip her!

As a librarian, I see this situation play out when it comes to information seeking. I have training on how to make databases give up their secrets. I won't bore you with the details. But these days the expectation is that everyone should be able to find their own information. Since most people aren't trained in how to do that, interfaces become more forgiving of vagueness and mistakes. Perhaps this means that most of the time when you search for something on the Internet, no matter how little you know about what you're doing, you find something useful somewhere in the results you're offered.

But often when I do an online search, I have to take extra effort to weed out results that don't really fit my query because the program thought I might have made a mistake formulating it. What makes life easier for you makes it harder for me. As a result, my hard-won skills become devalued because "anyone can find adequate stuff on the Internet." Possibly, but if the user-friendly software would get out of my way, I'd find better stuff faster. I'm a professional, after all.

What did you see today?

I saw the morning light

2008-04-05T15:32:00.004-05:00

Context
I'm in Detroit for the SiRSI Superconference, which I've mentioned in a previous blog post. My hotel room is on the 53rd floor (!) of the Marriott Renaissance Center. When I arrived last night I could see an variety of city lights outside my window, including the very complex sign for the Fox Theater. This morning when I opened my curtains just after daybreak, I couldn't see the Fox Theater at all.

Commentary
I think I frequently blog when I travel because it's a great opportunity to see new stuff. And if you're going to travel, I highly recommend staying on the 53rd floor of the Marriott Renaissance Center. I could sit here in front of the window with my iTunes on all day if I didn't have conference events to attend. It's better than television! And that's saying a lot, 'cuz I likes me some television.

Anyway, the disappearance of the Fox was quite startling today. It might have happened because they turn off the sign in the daytime, but I think it more likely that it just couldn't compete with the brilliance of the sun. It's like certain temptations of this world. In a particular context they're bright and attractive, or maybe a little mysterious (I was really fascinated by how this sign worked!). For whatever reason, you can't tear your attention away. But in light of the things you can see by the Spirit, they fade so badly that it's as if they never existed.

Please don't get me wrong. I have nothing against the Fox Theater or their sign and I don't think it's a hotbed of evil or anything (traditional Quakers were opposed to the theater, but I'm not). I'm just of a metaphorical cast of mind at the moment.

What did you see today?

I saw an article about the aftermath of a shooting

2008-03-26T14:43:00.004-05:00

Context
I read a story on the CNN website today about a father's reaction to seeing his son's alleged killer in court. You can read the article here. It talks not only about the victim's father's hope for healing in the aftermath of tragedy, but also the great potential this young man had and the relative rarity of cross-racial gang violence in Los Angeles.

Commentary
I find myself dismayed that CNN felt like they had to tart up this story of one person killing another in order to make it interesting.

Perhaps I should clarify: I don't think any of the information included in the story was useless, irrelevant or false. As a pacifist, I find stories of reconciliation in the face of violence very uplifting. As an avid student of our social interactions with each other, I'm intrigued by the news that gang-banging tends to be a segregated activity. And I understand that news outlets are going to seek a little "human interest" in every story they report. A few personal details about the victim will keep us from treating this crime as just another statistic.

And therein lies the problem. Apparently it is possible for us to read about a human being fatally shooting another human being and find it neither compelling nor surprising. I'd like to believe that CNN is wrong about us and we would have cared without the extra details, but I don't. I don't know if we've gotten used to a certain amount of crime or if we've always been callous, but either way I think we've bartered away our capacity for outrage way too cheaply.

What did you see today?

I heard a sermon on the prodigal son

2008-03-16T17:49:00.006-05:00

Context
I'm in Dallas today, so I attended a worship service at King of Glory Lutheran Church. Pastor Jon Bustard preached on, among other things, the prodigal son story from Luke. The text and a recording of his sermon of the week usually get posted to the King of Glory website, but as of this writing, they're not up yet.

Commentary
I think Pastor Bustard preached a great sermon today. That's really saying something coming from me because I hate preaching. It's even more surprising because, being having been a Christian all my life, I've probably heard at least 25 prodigal son sermons. But this one actually made me think about a new aspect of the story, because Pastor Bustard was challenging us to be involved in God's recovery of the rest of His prodigal children, instead of just emphasizing how happy we are that God found us.

Rationalist that I am, if I'm going to be involved in solving a problem, I need to know what causes it. Pastor Bustard's sermon made clear to me that there are two reasons the prodigal son stays away from his father, and that both of those apply to people who stay away from church today:

1) Guilt. Late in the story, the prodigal son realizes what he's done wrong and is convinced his father will never want to take him back. Today, there are many people who think, "I can't go to church. Who I am and what I've done are too awful to be in the holy presence of God." This is not true, but I think as Christians we forget that. After all, how often do we seek out child molesters to join our congregation?

2) Lack of perceived need. This is the one that really stood out for me today. As I was saying to my husband, "you can't catch the prodigal son when he's received his inheritance and he's walking away." It's kind of like the first step in Alcoholics Anonymous: "we admitted we were powerless over alcohol — that our lives had become unmanageable." Only when one's life becomes unmanageable (like when one's out slopping pigs and starts wanting their food) does one really need Christ.

This second reason made me feel worried. If people I knew had that lack of perceived need for years and years and constantly told me how unnecessary religion was in their lives, would I get lulled into inaction and not be prepared or available when their need suddenly came up and punched them in the stomach? I hope not, and here are two ways I can think of to prevent it:

1) I can insulate them a little. When they lack a perceived need I can say things like, "I understand that this is not necessary in your life, but here's how grace works for me," kind of like programming 911 into their spiritual speed dial in case of emergency.

2) I can keep my eyes open. I can recognize that opportunities to bring back prodigals may be sudden and brief and be prepared for them at all times. In other words, I can stay awake and keep plenty of oil in my lamp.

What did you hear today?

I saw an editorial about Brett Favre

2008-03-06T17:31:00.009-06:00

Context
Brett Favre, the starting quarterback for the Green Bay Packers for over 15 years, retired on Tuesday. Mike Lopresti wrote an editorial column on this event on Wednesday, but I only got around to reading it this morning.

Commentary
It must be hard to write a summing up column on Brett Favre's career. I think Lopresti did a good job, but it seems like a path fraught with possible missteps. I mean, you want to give appropriate tribute, but there's some things you just can't say.

1) You can't say Favre was the best quarterback in the NFL. At least, I don't think you can because there are guys like Peyton Manning who are both more technically proficient and strategize better.

2) You could say he started 275 consecutive games, but that seems like damning with faint praise. In the NFL, starting that many games takes some determination, sure, but it also takes a measure of good old-fashioned luck.

3) On the other hand, you can't say he was the luckiest quarterback in the NFL. The man had some bad things happen to him during his career. His father died. He fought an addiction to painkillers. His wife was diagnosed with breast cancer (she beat it, but still!).

4) He holds a bunch of passing records, but those are somewhat related to his longevity, so they might not be the appropriate legacy either.

5) Even with all those consecutive starts, you can't really label him as consistent. As Lopresti points out, Favre last career pass was intercepted by the New York Giants on their way to the Super Bowl. In 275 starts, it was not exactly his first interception. Or his first one that lost the game for his team.

Now, you may think I'm ragging on Brett. Far from it. I was seriously considering wearing a black armband to work on Wednesday because I was that broken up by the news of his retirement, and I'm a Detroit Lions fan! It's just that his career kind of defies description in traditional terms.

So I'm going to take a non-traditional approach: Brett Favre was the best Brett Favre to ever play in the NFL. There has never been another quarterback like him and probably never will be. The combination of "yay, yay, yay," and "omigod, omigod, omigod" in every game he played. The passes he threw that should have never been caught (but were). The passes he should have never thrown (but did). The goofy "I can't believe they pay me money to play this game" grin. And with all that, yes, the probably unbeatable number of consecutive starts. The off-the-field challenges. The whole Brett Favre experience that many of us feel like we lived through with him.

In the final analysis, isn't that the best tribute to be worthy of? He took the strengths and weaknesses God gave him and crafted an unforgettably unique career out of them. That's something we can all aspire to. Maybe for even longer than 275 consecutive Sundays.

What did you see today?

I saw a letter in an advice column

2008-02-22T20:07:00.004-06:00

Context
Annie's Mailbox is the successor column to Ann Landers. In today's column a woman wrote in asking advice about her relationship with a man she loves very much, but who is not interested in marriage and more children (she already has two) like she is.

Commentary
I think the Annie's Mailbox people gave this questioner very sound advice, saying that if marriage and children were what she considered essential in a long-term relationship, she should seek a partner who shares her values. Seems like a no-brainer, right?

"But," I can hear the romantics cry, "what about love?" Well, in our society we slap the label "love" on a variety of different feelings. Like when we say "love at first sight," what we really mean is attraction at first sight, which is great, but cannot carry a relationship forever on its own. That butterflies-in-the-stomach, weak-in-the-knees kind of feeling is inextricably bound to novelty and curiosity, both of which cannot help but fade with familiarity. And generally speaking, once the immediate attraction has gone away, you're not going to want to spend a lifetime with someone who doesn't share your view of what's important.

For me, even that sharing doesn't count as love. Love doesn't come until you know a person well enough to see that you generally agree with them about the important things in life and you're generally able to deal respectfully with the things you don't agree about. I say "generally," because yes, people who love each other do fight. In fact, I don't think you should make a commitment to a person until you see how they fight. If you keep a clear head, in thirty minutes you'll learn more about a person's real values than you would in a month of lovey-dovey talk.

I felt sorry for the woman who wrote in because I was in a similar situation to hers when I was in college. I stayed with a guy who really didn't share my values for way too long because I "loved" him, which in my case meant mostly that I wanted to take care of him. I think part of the problem was that we weren't very good at talking about our individual values, either because we weren't clear enough about them yet or because we didn't have enough confidence to stand up for them. Whatever the reason, we ended up being pretty darn contemptuous of each other by the time we split up. Which doesn't really fit any definition of love.

What did you see today?

I saw a presentation about library services

2008-02-07T16:34:00.001-06:00

Context
The Louisiana State Library sent me an invitation today to attend a webinar on "Meeting Needs Before They Need It." I'm not free at the scheduled time tomorrow, so I stopped by the website for the session to look at the accompanying PowerPoints. It appears that one of the needs Nancy Kranich plans to talk about is the need for civic engagement.

Commentary
The idea that our society might have a problem with civic engagement did not show up on my radar until the book Bowling Alone was published. As so often happens with librarians, I haven't read the book itself, just several reviews and synopses. The general thesis appears to be that Americans are doing a lot more things (like bowling) alone that they used to congregate in groups for and that this trend is rending the fabric of our society.

Nancy Kranich appears to be looking at a slightly different problem of civic engagement: that even when we do congregate, we're very selective about who we congregate with. My sister the biology teacher spends a little time in her classes talking about how similar people are to the songbirds who mate only with other birds that sing the same song. We say "opposites attract," but realistically we're more likely to hang out with people who are ethnically, economically or culturally similar to us. Kranich envisions libraries as places where people with differing perspectives can get together and learn from each other.

When I first read this part of the PowerPoint, I thought, "OK, we can create the space, but how do we convince people to participate?" I'm sure I'm not alone in being very fond of my particular circle of like-minded people and none too willing to change it. People who are different from me make me uncomfortable. Why not just avoid them?

Well, at the very least, because we can't. By design or by accident, depending upon whom you ask, we have a very heterogeneous society in the United States. Whether we choose to socialize with people who are different from us or not, they are going to have an effect on how we're governed, entertained and schooled. If we don't engage with each other we'll spend all our time either fighting or denying diversity, which seems unproductive in the extreme. This situation actually exists worldwide; it's just a little more obvious 'round here.

But there's more to it than just, "oh well, we have to live with these people, better make the best of it." If we go back to biology we learn that any creature that reproduces sexually (e.g., us, as opposed to amoebas) must introduce new genetic material in order to thrive. I believe the same is true of our interior selves as well. Sure, I'm uncomfortable with people who are different than me, but I'd surely stagnate if all I did was hang around with people who are just like me. My mind is an omnivore; it needs different kinds of intellectual food to stay healthy. How about we engage in a civic potluck?

What did you see today?