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?
Showing posts with label Correspondence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Correspondence. Show all posts
6/10/2011
I saw a call for experts
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?
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?
2/02/2011
I saw an obituary
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?
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?
2/18/2010
I heard an invitation to a town hall meeting
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 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?
2/04/2010
I saw an irate message
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?
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?
9/10/2009
I saw an e-mail from a Friend
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?
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?
8/14/2009
I saw a discussion of blame
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 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?
2/07/2006
I saw a fundraising letter from the AFSC
Context
The AFSC (American Friends Service Committee) is the social action arm of the Religious Society of Friends. I supported the AFSC before I became a Friend myself, but now I'm considerably more ardent about it. However, the latest fundraising letter I received disturbed me in some ways.
Commentary
This is easy; I'll just paste in the contents of the letter I'm sending to the General Secretary of the AFSC.
Mary Ellen McNish
General Secretary
American Friends Service Committee
1501 Cherry Street
Philadelphia, PA 19102-1403
Second Month 7, 2006
Dear Mary Ellen:
Your recent fundraising letter contained two passages that raised up concerns in me, one deep and one merely niggling.
The former concerns the passage about water purifiers sent to Iraq, in which you state, “As you consider your renewed support, please understand that for reasons of safety, I cannot always tell you about actions like this. But know, please, that your contribution will bolster our ability to do what is right . . .”
I cannot recall any examples from my Faith and Practice that prioritize “safety” over our testimonies regarding openness in our dealings with others. I believe that if the AFSC is considering an action that it is afraid to reveal to its membership, it should either not take the action or build up enough courage to talk about it and face the consequences. On a related note, it seems disingenuous for you to complain about Pentagon surveillance of the AFSC while still reserving the right to secretly violate federal law.
You could not have known that one of the reasons I joined the Religious Society of Friends was because I find myself unable to place blind faith in other human beings when it comes to faith matters, including pastors or say, wider religious organizations. However, now that I have told you, perhaps you’ll understand that I can’t just “know” that you’ll be exercising proper stewardship over the resources God has given me. One of the great strengths of Friends is our use of everyone’s light for discernment, not just that of a select few.
My other concern is minor, and you wouldn’t even be hearing about it if we hadn’t discussed it in the program part of our meeting last week. I didn’t like your use of the phrase “like-minded people” toward the end of your letter. It implies that there’s a certain group of people, let’s call them “us,” who are trying to change the world for the better. This, in turn, implies that there’s a second group of people (“them”) who are not. I believe the cause of peace is ultimately better served if we use the language of building bridges, not circling the wagons.
Please understand that the only reason I’m writing today is because I am normally so proud of AFSC’s work and the way it represents Friends in the wider world. You spoke about “bedrock principles” in your letter, so I wanted to share some of mine.
Yours in Christ,
Lynn Schlatter
If you're not a Quaker, the language of this letter might sound kind of funny. In spite of, and sometimes because of, the fact that our denomination embraces plain speaking as a religious principle, "Quakerspeak" definitely has some strange elements.
"Second month" is the traditional Quaker way of referring to February. Our founder, George Fox, objected to the fact that days and months were named after figures of mythology. He thought we should call them what they are, the first, second, or whatever month or day. Quaker children tend to go to "First Day School," not "Sunday School."
The passage I quote in the second paragraph pertains to a program whereby the AFSC supplied water purifiers to Iraq in violation of the pre-war trade sanctions. The "cannot tell you about actions like this" was a puzzler to me. I knew they were doing it at the time, although I cannot recall how I knew
A "Faith and Practice" is a Quaker catechism, essentially. Except we don't believe in dogma, so it's more like a collection of things "weighty" Friends have thought might be useful for spiritual growth.
If you don't know what I mean about Pentagon surveillance of the AFSC, here's their take on the issue. I use the term "you" purposefully in that paragraph, as Mary Ellen is one of the people who has gone on record decrying this action.
Actually, a great deal of this letter, which took up two sides of a legal sheet of paper, seemed to imply that the AFSC was going less in the direction of "building peace," and more in the direction of "bringing down the current administration." I don't know if that's the actual organizational culture or what they thought would play well in a fundraising letter. I actually hope it's the former. The latter would be a lot more Machiavellian than I'm comfortable with in my co-religionists.
What did you see today?
The AFSC (American Friends Service Committee) is the social action arm of the Religious Society of Friends. I supported the AFSC before I became a Friend myself, but now I'm considerably more ardent about it. However, the latest fundraising letter I received disturbed me in some ways.
Commentary
This is easy; I'll just paste in the contents of the letter I'm sending to the General Secretary of the AFSC.
Mary Ellen McNish
General Secretary
American Friends Service Committee
1501 Cherry Street
Philadelphia, PA 19102-1403
Second Month 7, 2006
Dear Mary Ellen:
Your recent fundraising letter contained two passages that raised up concerns in me, one deep and one merely niggling.
The former concerns the passage about water purifiers sent to Iraq, in which you state, “As you consider your renewed support, please understand that for reasons of safety, I cannot always tell you about actions like this. But know, please, that your contribution will bolster our ability to do what is right . . .”
I cannot recall any examples from my Faith and Practice that prioritize “safety” over our testimonies regarding openness in our dealings with others. I believe that if the AFSC is considering an action that it is afraid to reveal to its membership, it should either not take the action or build up enough courage to talk about it and face the consequences. On a related note, it seems disingenuous for you to complain about Pentagon surveillance of the AFSC while still reserving the right to secretly violate federal law.
You could not have known that one of the reasons I joined the Religious Society of Friends was because I find myself unable to place blind faith in other human beings when it comes to faith matters, including pastors or say, wider religious organizations. However, now that I have told you, perhaps you’ll understand that I can’t just “know” that you’ll be exercising proper stewardship over the resources God has given me. One of the great strengths of Friends is our use of everyone’s light for discernment, not just that of a select few.
My other concern is minor, and you wouldn’t even be hearing about it if we hadn’t discussed it in the program part of our meeting last week. I didn’t like your use of the phrase “like-minded people” toward the end of your letter. It implies that there’s a certain group of people, let’s call them “us,” who are trying to change the world for the better. This, in turn, implies that there’s a second group of people (“them”) who are not. I believe the cause of peace is ultimately better served if we use the language of building bridges, not circling the wagons.
Please understand that the only reason I’m writing today is because I am normally so proud of AFSC’s work and the way it represents Friends in the wider world. You spoke about “bedrock principles” in your letter, so I wanted to share some of mine.
Yours in Christ,
Lynn Schlatter
If you're not a Quaker, the language of this letter might sound kind of funny. In spite of, and sometimes because of, the fact that our denomination embraces plain speaking as a religious principle, "Quakerspeak" definitely has some strange elements.
"Second month" is the traditional Quaker way of referring to February. Our founder, George Fox, objected to the fact that days and months were named after figures of mythology. He thought we should call them what they are, the first, second, or whatever month or day. Quaker children tend to go to "First Day School," not "Sunday School."
The passage I quote in the second paragraph pertains to a program whereby the AFSC supplied water purifiers to Iraq in violation of the pre-war trade sanctions. The "cannot tell you about actions like this" was a puzzler to me. I knew they were doing it at the time, although I cannot recall how I knew
A "Faith and Practice" is a Quaker catechism, essentially. Except we don't believe in dogma, so it's more like a collection of things "weighty" Friends have thought might be useful for spiritual growth.
If you don't know what I mean about Pentagon surveillance of the AFSC, here's their take on the issue. I use the term "you" purposefully in that paragraph, as Mary Ellen is one of the people who has gone on record decrying this action.
Actually, a great deal of this letter, which took up two sides of a legal sheet of paper, seemed to imply that the AFSC was going less in the direction of "building peace," and more in the direction of "bringing down the current administration." I don't know if that's the actual organizational culture or what they thought would play well in a fundraising letter. I actually hope it's the former. The latter would be a lot more Machiavellian than I'm comfortable with in my co-religionists.
What did you see today?
1/03/2006
I saw a photograph of my sister's haircut.
Context
My sister is planning to start chemotherapy in a few weeks, so she got her hair cut as a preemptive measure and I just received my first photo of her newly-short 'do. By the way, she donated her hair to Locks of Love.
Commentary
She looks different. She looks older. She looks better. That's kind of weird; we're accustomed to think that in middle age older-looking is never better-looking. It's not true though. She looks like a different, more mature, more relaxed person. Better.
I wonder if some other positive changes will come along with this haircut. It's odd to think that something as nerve-wracking as chemotherapy would actually be the door into a new life, but God has a flair for the odd. Especially the "it looks like a bad thing, but it's actually a good thing" kind of odd. Like Good Friday.
What did you see today?
My sister is planning to start chemotherapy in a few weeks, so she got her hair cut as a preemptive measure and I just received my first photo of her newly-short 'do. By the way, she donated her hair to Locks of Love.
Commentary
She looks different. She looks older. She looks better. That's kind of weird; we're accustomed to think that in middle age older-looking is never better-looking. It's not true though. She looks like a different, more mature, more relaxed person. Better.
I wonder if some other positive changes will come along with this haircut. It's odd to think that something as nerve-wracking as chemotherapy would actually be the door into a new life, but God has a flair for the odd. Especially the "it looks like a bad thing, but it's actually a good thing" kind of odd. Like Good Friday.
What did you see today?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)