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?
7/03/2008
I heard a patron express appreciation
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?
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?
6/27/2008
I saw a statement about teaching
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 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?
6/22/2008
I saw a list of "bad-boy" football players
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 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?
6/21/2008
I heard Friends discussing God's nature
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?
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?
6/04/2008
I saw an odd post on an e-mail list
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 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?
5/17/2008
I heard a Friend talk about community reaction.
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?
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?
4/06/2008
I saw a waitress trying to do her job.
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'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?
4/05/2008
I saw the morning light
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'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?
3/26/2008
I saw an article about the aftermath of a shooting
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 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?
3/16/2008
I heard a sermon on the prodigal son
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'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?
3/06/2008
I saw an editorial about Brett Favre
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?
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?
2/22/2008
I saw a letter in an advice column
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?
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?
2/07/2008
I saw a presentation about library services
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?
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?
1/11/2008
I saw a Katherine Heigl quote
Context
I was looking at the cover of the January 2008 Vanity Fair today, and it apparently had an interview with Katherine Heigl inside. I didn’t read the interview, but there was a pull quote on the cover saying, in effect, that Ms. Heigl thought the part she played in Knocked Up was a little “sexist,” because she was humorless and uptight. I haven’t seen Knocked Up, nor have I read the script.
Commentary
I’m not quite sure what Ms. Heigl means by her character being “sexist.” The character might have had some unattractive traits, but in order to be “sexist,” she would have to hold specific prejudices against either men or women and that’s not what the rest of the quote seems to imply.
I’m not just playing with semantics here. I think we often make the mistake of thinking that creating a stereotypical fiction character, i.e. one that embodies some of the prejudices people hold, is sexist. It may be inappropriate, lazy or stupid, but it’s not sexist.
Sexism (or ageism or racism or sexual orientationism) is the process of generalizing, of saying that certain characteristics are true of everyone who belongs to a given group. Writing a character a certain way only implies that one member of the group holds them. And realistically, it’s just as silly to write as if there are no humorless uptight women as it is to say all of them are.
It is possible to write a sexist character in the way the Heigl quote seems to imply. If the script said, “like all women, the character is humorless and uptight,” that would be sexism. On the other hand, it seems unlikely that any self-respecting actress would have taken the part if they’d read something like that.
What did you see today?
I was looking at the cover of the January 2008 Vanity Fair today, and it apparently had an interview with Katherine Heigl inside. I didn’t read the interview, but there was a pull quote on the cover saying, in effect, that Ms. Heigl thought the part she played in Knocked Up was a little “sexist,” because she was humorless and uptight. I haven’t seen Knocked Up, nor have I read the script.
Commentary
I’m not quite sure what Ms. Heigl means by her character being “sexist.” The character might have had some unattractive traits, but in order to be “sexist,” she would have to hold specific prejudices against either men or women and that’s not what the rest of the quote seems to imply.
I’m not just playing with semantics here. I think we often make the mistake of thinking that creating a stereotypical fiction character, i.e. one that embodies some of the prejudices people hold, is sexist. It may be inappropriate, lazy or stupid, but it’s not sexist.
Sexism (or ageism or racism or sexual orientationism) is the process of generalizing, of saying that certain characteristics are true of everyone who belongs to a given group. Writing a character a certain way only implies that one member of the group holds them. And realistically, it’s just as silly to write as if there are no humorless uptight women as it is to say all of them are.
It is possible to write a sexist character in the way the Heigl quote seems to imply. If the script said, “like all women, the character is humorless and uptight,” that would be sexism. On the other hand, it seems unlikely that any self-respecting actress would have taken the part if they’d read something like that.
What did you see today?
12/13/2007
I saw a description of education
Context
I was reading through some more messages on the Information Literacy Instruction mailing list today. One of them was about academic institutions whose campus-wide goals reflect an emphasis on information literacy. Reading the various examples, I found this snippet from the mission statement for the University of North Carolina at Charlotte: "Develop an understanding and appreciation of the themes of liberal education for private and public life in the areas of arts and society, the western tradition, global understanding, and ethical issues and cultural critique." As a person who is generally liberal in my political opinions, the use of the phrase "liberal education" struck me.
Commentary
A quick check of Wikipedia and the Association of American Colleges and Universities' website shows that "liberal education" means essentially the same thing as "liberal arts education": the idea that it's beneficial to learn about many subjects instead of just focusing on the field you plan to make money in.
I was wondering, though, if some people see the term "liberal education" and think it means education in how to be a liberal. In other words, the liberal education one would get at UNCC might be in contrast to the conservative education one would get at Oral Roberts University. I would have never thought that way about liberal arts colleges, but seeing "liberal" and "education" right next to each other made the idea more plausible.
Actually, one might not be mistaken in seeing it that way. A recent poll by Zogby and The Norman Lear Center showed that when it comes to television at least, people with liberal political views are much more likely than political conservatives to watch a variety of different types of shows, not disdaining even those whose views they disagree with. In retrospect this is not a surprising result. For me, liberalism means being open to everything. Illiberalism, on the other hand, posits that certain views are so obviously dangerous or erroneous that they don't even bear examination.
It bears noting, however, that liberalism and illiberalism are not always equivalent to left-wing and right-wing political convictions. I've lived in California; I know plenty of radicals who are convinced the only way to effect social change is to annihilate anyone who holds a contrary opinion. I also have friends who have a Republican's love for small government but don't vilify me for not sharing it. And in spite of my general liberalism, I'm fairly conservative religiously and economically. None of my convictions ever make me want to shut my eyes to what else is out there.
What did you see today?
I was reading through some more messages on the Information Literacy Instruction mailing list today. One of them was about academic institutions whose campus-wide goals reflect an emphasis on information literacy. Reading the various examples, I found this snippet from the mission statement for the University of North Carolina at Charlotte: "Develop an understanding and appreciation of the themes of liberal education for private and public life in the areas of arts and society, the western tradition, global understanding, and ethical issues and cultural critique." As a person who is generally liberal in my political opinions, the use of the phrase "liberal education" struck me.
Commentary
A quick check of Wikipedia and the Association of American Colleges and Universities' website shows that "liberal education" means essentially the same thing as "liberal arts education": the idea that it's beneficial to learn about many subjects instead of just focusing on the field you plan to make money in.
I was wondering, though, if some people see the term "liberal education" and think it means education in how to be a liberal. In other words, the liberal education one would get at UNCC might be in contrast to the conservative education one would get at Oral Roberts University. I would have never thought that way about liberal arts colleges, but seeing "liberal" and "education" right next to each other made the idea more plausible.
Actually, one might not be mistaken in seeing it that way. A recent poll by Zogby and The Norman Lear Center showed that when it comes to television at least, people with liberal political views are much more likely than political conservatives to watch a variety of different types of shows, not disdaining even those whose views they disagree with. In retrospect this is not a surprising result. For me, liberalism means being open to everything. Illiberalism, on the other hand, posits that certain views are so obviously dangerous or erroneous that they don't even bear examination.
It bears noting, however, that liberalism and illiberalism are not always equivalent to left-wing and right-wing political convictions. I've lived in California; I know plenty of radicals who are convinced the only way to effect social change is to annihilate anyone who holds a contrary opinion. I also have friends who have a Republican's love for small government but don't vilify me for not sharing it. And in spite of my general liberalism, I'm fairly conservative religiously and economically. None of my convictions ever make me want to shut my eyes to what else is out there.
What did you see today?
11/26/2007
I saw a website about the writers' strike
Context
As a big fan of filmed entertainment, I've been paying a lot of attention to the WGA West strike. I get a lot of my information from whedonesque.com, because of both my admiration for Joss Whedon himself and my respect for this particular fan community. Whedonesque, in its turn, led me to fans4writers.com, which details actions fans can take to support the striking writers.
Commentary
I am wildly ambivalent about unions. On one hand, I recognize that the right to collective bargaining is an important weapon against poverty, injustice and oppression. On the other hand, I don't like closed shops and resented the fact that when I worked as a public school teacher in Texas I was forced to join the teachers’ union. I guess I feel like in a perfect world individuals would make up their own minds about appropriate working conditions and not take jobs that didn’t fulfill them. However, I am nowhere near naive enough to believe this is a perfect world.
Contributing to my confused stance is my recognition that in 21st century America, well-established labor unions can actually benefit employers who think in the long term. They prevent disruptive wildcat strikes and allow enterprises to use standardized contracts for classes of workers, rather than negotiating new terms for each new hire.
So how does this affect my feelings about the writers’ strike? Well, for one thing I’ll say that this seems like one of those circumstances where studios and entertainment corporations ought to be overjoyed to be able to negotiate with one entity, rather than having to work out a payment scheme with each of the thousands of writers they employ. Moreover, because I love writing and writers, I can’t see any reason why they shouldn’t get a reasonable percentage of the profits created by their efforts, regardless of the medium.
The upshot is although I’m wildly ambivalent about unions, I’m foursquare behind the WGA West on this particular action. So I’ll be taking some of the actions proposed by fans4writers.com. No visits to promotional websites and no downloading of filmed entertainment until the strike is resolved. Possibly even a phone call or two to network executives.
What did you see today?
As a big fan of filmed entertainment, I've been paying a lot of attention to the WGA West strike. I get a lot of my information from whedonesque.com, because of both my admiration for Joss Whedon himself and my respect for this particular fan community. Whedonesque, in its turn, led me to fans4writers.com, which details actions fans can take to support the striking writers.
Commentary
I am wildly ambivalent about unions. On one hand, I recognize that the right to collective bargaining is an important weapon against poverty, injustice and oppression. On the other hand, I don't like closed shops and resented the fact that when I worked as a public school teacher in Texas I was forced to join the teachers’ union. I guess I feel like in a perfect world individuals would make up their own minds about appropriate working conditions and not take jobs that didn’t fulfill them. However, I am nowhere near naive enough to believe this is a perfect world.
Contributing to my confused stance is my recognition that in 21st century America, well-established labor unions can actually benefit employers who think in the long term. They prevent disruptive wildcat strikes and allow enterprises to use standardized contracts for classes of workers, rather than negotiating new terms for each new hire.
So how does this affect my feelings about the writers’ strike? Well, for one thing I’ll say that this seems like one of those circumstances where studios and entertainment corporations ought to be overjoyed to be able to negotiate with one entity, rather than having to work out a payment scheme with each of the thousands of writers they employ. Moreover, because I love writing and writers, I can’t see any reason why they shouldn’t get a reasonable percentage of the profits created by their efforts, regardless of the medium.
The upshot is although I’m wildly ambivalent about unions, I’m foursquare behind the WGA West on this particular action. So I’ll be taking some of the actions proposed by fans4writers.com. No visits to promotional websites and no downloading of filmed entertainment until the strike is resolved. Possibly even a phone call or two to network executives.
What did you see today?
11/18/2007
I heard John Madden talk about sportsmanship
Context
NBC is broadcasting a football game tonight between the New England Patriots and the Buffalo Bills. John Madden is a former football coach and the color commentator for this game. Towards the end of the first half, when the Patriots had built up a 35-7 lead, Madden said something to this effect: "Nobody should complain about the Patriots running up the score. If they don't want the score run up, they should play some defense."
Commentary
35-7 is not an insurmountable lead in an NFL game. In fact, the Bills themselves have come back from a bigger deficit. However, it's a pretty big lead for a team that's well on the way to an undefeated season playing against a team that's just above .500.
Madden is correct in that if the Bills lose, they have no one to blame but themselves. However, I think he's way off base when he says "no one" should complain. Maybe the opposing team shouldn't, but I think the fans should and do. It's not "competitiveness," which is how some people in the media have tried to dress up this particular bit of ugliness that the Patriots have carried out in almost every game they've played this year, it's poor sportsmanship. Which makes it a very short-sighted tactic for the team to carry out.
Consider why people watch sports. Is it to see someone score points? Well, sure, that's fun, but even Harlem Globetrotters fans aren't really interested in the final score. Sports fans like games that tell a story. Sometimes the story is "underdog emerges victorious." Sometimes it's "perseverance will carry you through" (pretty much always the story when Brett Favre plays). Or even, when two particularly bad teams play each other: "somebody's got to win this stinker."
But what kind of story do you get when one team consistently humiliates its opponents (and does not whistle Sweet Georgia Brown while doing it)? "We're better. We're really better. We're really really really better." When you don't have much of a story, you lose all but your most hard-core fans. And remember, we're talking about sports entertainment here. Not to be too cynical, but winning games is not nearly as important as convincing people to watch you win games (and buy your licensed merchandise).
I turned off the Patriots game at half-time. NBC is running another Patriots game next Sunday and I may not bother to tune in at all, which is saying a lot for a rabid football fan like myself. But I feel like I may have to exercise my right to complain about poor sportsmanship with my clicker. After all, I have no control over Buffalo's defense.
What did you hear today?
NBC is broadcasting a football game tonight between the New England Patriots and the Buffalo Bills. John Madden is a former football coach and the color commentator for this game. Towards the end of the first half, when the Patriots had built up a 35-7 lead, Madden said something to this effect: "Nobody should complain about the Patriots running up the score. If they don't want the score run up, they should play some defense."
Commentary
35-7 is not an insurmountable lead in an NFL game. In fact, the Bills themselves have come back from a bigger deficit. However, it's a pretty big lead for a team that's well on the way to an undefeated season playing against a team that's just above .500.
Madden is correct in that if the Bills lose, they have no one to blame but themselves. However, I think he's way off base when he says "no one" should complain. Maybe the opposing team shouldn't, but I think the fans should and do. It's not "competitiveness," which is how some people in the media have tried to dress up this particular bit of ugliness that the Patriots have carried out in almost every game they've played this year, it's poor sportsmanship. Which makes it a very short-sighted tactic for the team to carry out.
Consider why people watch sports. Is it to see someone score points? Well, sure, that's fun, but even Harlem Globetrotters fans aren't really interested in the final score. Sports fans like games that tell a story. Sometimes the story is "underdog emerges victorious." Sometimes it's "perseverance will carry you through" (pretty much always the story when Brett Favre plays). Or even, when two particularly bad teams play each other: "somebody's got to win this stinker."
But what kind of story do you get when one team consistently humiliates its opponents (and does not whistle Sweet Georgia Brown while doing it)? "We're better. We're really better. We're really really really better." When you don't have much of a story, you lose all but your most hard-core fans. And remember, we're talking about sports entertainment here. Not to be too cynical, but winning games is not nearly as important as convincing people to watch you win games (and buy your licensed merchandise).
I turned off the Patriots game at half-time. NBC is running another Patriots game next Sunday and I may not bother to tune in at all, which is saying a lot for a rabid football fan like myself. But I feel like I may have to exercise my right to complain about poor sportsmanship with my clicker. After all, I have no control over Buffalo's defense.
What did you hear today?
11/10/2007
I saw a column about safety
Context
Monica Carter Tagore is a columnist for The Shreveport Times. Today is Saturday. In Friday's column she discussed some "how to stay safe" responses to a couple of recent incidents in the area.
Commentary
Even though Monica is my favorite columnist in the Times, I don't read the paper religiously enough to catch everything she writes. In fact, I was only reading the Friday paper today because it's my husband's (and dog's) job to get the morning paper and he wasn't up yet. I'm glad to be able to show you the column on the Internet, because the newspaper version had a somewhat nonsensical title.
The reason I like Ms. Tagore's columns so much is not because I always agree with them, but because they're almost always thought provoking. I didn't agree with her definitions of "common sense" and "smarts" today, nor with her solution to the "kid in peril" situation (I never think fear-mongering is a good way to promote safety), but reading the column did set me to thinking about safety in general.
I'm often troubled by how we approach this issue, especially our inclination to look to "preventing bad things" as the solution to society's ills. Don't get me wrong; some forms of prevention are wonderful (life without smallpox vaccines, anyone? I didn't think so.). But I think there are at least three things we need to consider when assessing the value of preventative medicine for a given situation:
1) Nothing will make you 100% safe.
Law enforcement,, popular culture and urban legend tell us that if someone is really determined to steal from us, they will find a way. Even God is not particularly impressed with our efforts to protect ourselves from loss.
2) Sometimes our instinct to just prevent bad things from happening keeps us from better long-term solutions.
I live in Louisiana. I'm nowhere near New Orleans and Shreveport got only one really rainy day out of Rita, but the "how to prevent hurricane damage" debate has an impact statewide on politics and economics.
In middle school I learned that levees are a pretty dicey form of flood prevention, because a body of water that is not permitted to flood occasionally will continually build up silt on its bed. So the water level keeps getting higher and you have to keep building bigger levees. If you do that all around a city over several decades, you end up with a city that's essentially surrounded by levee-walls. When the water finally does wash over, which it will because nothing makes you 100% safe, it's almost impossible to remove. That, in case you were puzzled about it, is what happened to New Orleans.
3) Sometimes it's better go through a bad thing and come out on the other side than to prevent it.
In the Bible, two people avoid death completely: Enoch and Elijah (Tip 'o the hat to Shygost, my husband's Go teacher for reminding me of this fact.). And Enoch and Elijah are obviously two of God's favorite people. But God Himself, in the form of Jesus, did not avoid death. He died and rose again, all for the purpose of ending the sting of death forever.
As a beneficiary, I think this was by far the better result. Frankly, knowing I have a God like that makes me feel pretty darn safe under any circumstances.
What did you see today?
Monica Carter Tagore is a columnist for The Shreveport Times. Today is Saturday. In Friday's column she discussed some "how to stay safe" responses to a couple of recent incidents in the area.
Commentary
Even though Monica is my favorite columnist in the Times, I don't read the paper religiously enough to catch everything she writes. In fact, I was only reading the Friday paper today because it's my husband's (and dog's) job to get the morning paper and he wasn't up yet. I'm glad to be able to show you the column on the Internet, because the newspaper version had a somewhat nonsensical title.
The reason I like Ms. Tagore's columns so much is not because I always agree with them, but because they're almost always thought provoking. I didn't agree with her definitions of "common sense" and "smarts" today, nor with her solution to the "kid in peril" situation (I never think fear-mongering is a good way to promote safety), but reading the column did set me to thinking about safety in general.
I'm often troubled by how we approach this issue, especially our inclination to look to "preventing bad things" as the solution to society's ills. Don't get me wrong; some forms of prevention are wonderful (life without smallpox vaccines, anyone? I didn't think so.). But I think there are at least three things we need to consider when assessing the value of preventative medicine for a given situation:
1) Nothing will make you 100% safe.
Law enforcement,, popular culture and urban legend tell us that if someone is really determined to steal from us, they will find a way. Even God is not particularly impressed with our efforts to protect ourselves from loss.
2) Sometimes our instinct to just prevent bad things from happening keeps us from better long-term solutions.
I live in Louisiana. I'm nowhere near New Orleans and Shreveport got only one really rainy day out of Rita, but the "how to prevent hurricane damage" debate has an impact statewide on politics and economics.
In middle school I learned that levees are a pretty dicey form of flood prevention, because a body of water that is not permitted to flood occasionally will continually build up silt on its bed. So the water level keeps getting higher and you have to keep building bigger levees. If you do that all around a city over several decades, you end up with a city that's essentially surrounded by levee-walls. When the water finally does wash over, which it will because nothing makes you 100% safe, it's almost impossible to remove. That, in case you were puzzled about it, is what happened to New Orleans.
3) Sometimes it's better go through a bad thing and come out on the other side than to prevent it.
In the Bible, two people avoid death completely: Enoch and Elijah (Tip 'o the hat to Shygost, my husband's Go teacher for reminding me of this fact.). And Enoch and Elijah are obviously two of God's favorite people. But God Himself, in the form of Jesus, did not avoid death. He died and rose again, all for the purpose of ending the sting of death forever.
As a beneficiary, I think this was by far the better result. Frankly, knowing I have a God like that makes me feel pretty darn safe under any circumstances.
What did you see today?
11/08/2007
I saw a discussion of incentives
Context
I belong to an e-mail list called ili-l, which stands for Information Literacy Instruction. A recent post on the list asked for suggestions for promoting a certain type of classes. Several responses came back including, "give the students chocolate."
Commentary
Information Literacy Instruction is the practice of teaching someone to find information and use it effectively and ethically, so it's something all librarians engage in to some extent. However, because of the centrality of research to the mission of universities, it's particularly important to academic librarians, and they dominate the discussion on ili-l.
It's particularly depressing to me, therefore, that academic librarians often feel like their role in the information universe is belittled. Apparently people in their communities (not just students, but faculty and administration as well) really believe that everything is on the Internet. This is wrongheaded enough, but even if all the useful information in the world was on the internet, you would still need information professionals (librarians are one class of those, but there are others) to help you find it and use it.
So some academic librarians are reduced to asking how they can possibly convince students at their institutions to avail themselves of their service, and others are reduced to suggesting that students be bribed with chocolate. I had a hard time getting started on this blog entry because I didn't know how to express the many, many reasons I think this is wrong. I finally decided to stick with just one: handing out candy doesn't convince people of the importance of your enterprise; it trivializes it.
Picture this: Lakeisha Student comes back from her Information Literacy class and her roommate asks what it was like. "Well," she says, "I learned to use controlled vocabulary to create more effective searches in specialized databases and I got some M&Ms(tm)!" It's like somebody saying, "I climbed Mount Everest yesterday, and when I got to the top there was a McDonald's(tm)!" By the way, if you don't know what I mean by "using controlled vocabulary to create more effective searches in specialized databases," you might want to ask a librarian. You'd be amazed at what you can learn.
What did you see today?
I belong to an e-mail list called ili-l, which stands for Information Literacy Instruction. A recent post on the list asked for suggestions for promoting a certain type of classes. Several responses came back including, "give the students chocolate."
Commentary
Information Literacy Instruction is the practice of teaching someone to find information and use it effectively and ethically, so it's something all librarians engage in to some extent. However, because of the centrality of research to the mission of universities, it's particularly important to academic librarians, and they dominate the discussion on ili-l.
It's particularly depressing to me, therefore, that academic librarians often feel like their role in the information universe is belittled. Apparently people in their communities (not just students, but faculty and administration as well) really believe that everything is on the Internet. This is wrongheaded enough, but even if all the useful information in the world was on the internet, you would still need information professionals (librarians are one class of those, but there are others) to help you find it and use it.
So some academic librarians are reduced to asking how they can possibly convince students at their institutions to avail themselves of their service, and others are reduced to suggesting that students be bribed with chocolate. I had a hard time getting started on this blog entry because I didn't know how to express the many, many reasons I think this is wrong. I finally decided to stick with just one: handing out candy doesn't convince people of the importance of your enterprise; it trivializes it.
Picture this: Lakeisha Student comes back from her Information Literacy class and her roommate asks what it was like. "Well," she says, "I learned to use controlled vocabulary to create more effective searches in specialized databases and I got some M&Ms(tm)!" It's like somebody saying, "I climbed Mount Everest yesterday, and when I got to the top there was a McDonald's(tm)!" By the way, if you don't know what I mean by "using controlled vocabulary to create more effective searches in specialized databases," you might want to ask a librarian. You'd be amazed at what you can learn.
What did you see today?
10/28/2007
I saw an article about Katrina Cottages
Context
The Shreveport Times had an article today about how the city council of Bay St. Louis, Mississippi is responding to requests to erect Katrina Cottages. Once again, I couldn't find this on the Times' website, but the same story appeared in many newspapers in Louisiana, so you can read a copy here.
Bay St. Louis is in Hancock County, Mississippi, the area hardest hit by Hurricane Katrina itself. New Orleans, by contrast, was devastated by an engineering failure.
Commentary
I have recently become enamored of poverty-fighting program called Housing First. I believe it is astronomically difficult to make any progress in our current society without having a permanent address. Since I work in the Automation Department at the public library, I can give you two examples of what I mean:
1) These days many of our daily transactions (applying for jobs, performing schoolwork, communicating with friends and family) take place on the computer. The library provides free computer use if you have a library card. The easiest way to get a library card is to prove that you live in the parish, which means having a permanent address.
2) I teach computer classes to the public, which because of #1, can be a key to breaking the cycle of poverty. I don't even require a library card to enroll. I do, however, have a waiting list and I need to be able to get in touch with people when their names comes to the top. Which means I need an address or phone number. I'm absolutely willing to call one of the local homeless shelters to reach them, but given the transitory nature of those arrangements, it's really a crapshoot as to whether I can reach someone that way.
The basic opposition that the city council of Bay St. Louis seems to have to Katrina Cottages is, "these are cheap little houses that Katrina victims are going to live in permanently, and that's going to drive down property values in the neighborhoods where they set up." I'm afraid they lose me at the phrase "drive down property values." I have some sympathy for the idea that if you need to move, you're going to want to get enough money out of your current house to afford an equivalent one in a different place. However, when I balance "people who already have houses and want to make sure they get lots of money when they sell them" against "people who have no houses and need something to get their lives going again," I'm pretty much going to have to side with the latter.
What did you see today?
The Shreveport Times had an article today about how the city council of Bay St. Louis, Mississippi is responding to requests to erect Katrina Cottages. Once again, I couldn't find this on the Times' website, but the same story appeared in many newspapers in Louisiana, so you can read a copy here.
Bay St. Louis is in Hancock County, Mississippi, the area hardest hit by Hurricane Katrina itself. New Orleans, by contrast, was devastated by an engineering failure.
Commentary
I have recently become enamored of poverty-fighting program called Housing First. I believe it is astronomically difficult to make any progress in our current society without having a permanent address. Since I work in the Automation Department at the public library, I can give you two examples of what I mean:
1) These days many of our daily transactions (applying for jobs, performing schoolwork, communicating with friends and family) take place on the computer. The library provides free computer use if you have a library card. The easiest way to get a library card is to prove that you live in the parish, which means having a permanent address.
2) I teach computer classes to the public, which because of #1, can be a key to breaking the cycle of poverty. I don't even require a library card to enroll. I do, however, have a waiting list and I need to be able to get in touch with people when their names comes to the top. Which means I need an address or phone number. I'm absolutely willing to call one of the local homeless shelters to reach them, but given the transitory nature of those arrangements, it's really a crapshoot as to whether I can reach someone that way.
The basic opposition that the city council of Bay St. Louis seems to have to Katrina Cottages is, "these are cheap little houses that Katrina victims are going to live in permanently, and that's going to drive down property values in the neighborhoods where they set up." I'm afraid they lose me at the phrase "drive down property values." I have some sympathy for the idea that if you need to move, you're going to want to get enough money out of your current house to afford an equivalent one in a different place. However, when I balance "people who already have houses and want to make sure they get lots of money when they sell them" against "people who have no houses and need something to get their lives going again," I'm pretty much going to have to side with the latter.
What did you see today?
9/05/2007
I saw a description of Christianity
Context
While web surfing today, I came across this blog entry which ends up positing that Christianity is, in fact, a "doom cult."
Commentary
I like to read analyses of Christianity written by non-Christians; it often helps me see where our message is going astray (e.g., "we're better than you" is not a basic tenet of the faith, regardless of how many people seem to espouse it,). In this case, however, I'm forced to say that Bronze Blog has hit the nail right on the head. We are a doom cult. Well, "cult" might not be the term I would use, but I concede the blogger's point that "cult" and "religion" have the same semantic relationship as "terrorist" and "freedom fighter": it depends on where you're standing.
But we're definitely all about the doom. In our defense, though, every religion is about doom. The basic premise of faith is, "you are there. You oughta be here instead. If you don't come over here, bad things will happen." Certainly we vary as to where "here" is and the appropriate method to get from the one place to the other, but as a general rule religion says things have got to change and it knows the way. It really doesn't have any other purpose.
So why does Bronze Blog think this is an insight worth blogging about? Well, for one thing, I've noticed there are a number of things that anti-Christians think of as "shocking revelations" that most Christians have long since assimilated into their understanding of how complex a relationship with God really is. I think some people really believe that as soon as they tell me that Jesus cursed a fig tree the scales will drop from my eyes and I'll renounce my deluded ways forever. Of course, scales dropping from the eyes is itself a Biblical phenomenon, but I digress.
On the other hand, maybe Bronze Blog is not so far afield. Maybe we have come to the point where Christians do think of apocalyptic nature of our faith as a "shocking revelation." Maybe we've become so comfortable and satisfied with the status quo that we really do believe that "God’s in his heaven: All’s right with the world."
But that's a Robert Browning line, not a biblical one. The Bible says the world is broken and that God will not stand for it forever. And the only consolation we get is that the new world will be better than the old. Hey, we're a doom cult, not a despairing one.
What did you see today?
While web surfing today, I came across this blog entry which ends up positing that Christianity is, in fact, a "doom cult."
Commentary
I like to read analyses of Christianity written by non-Christians; it often helps me see where our message is going astray (e.g., "we're better than you" is not a basic tenet of the faith, regardless of how many people seem to espouse it,). In this case, however, I'm forced to say that Bronze Blog has hit the nail right on the head. We are a doom cult. Well, "cult" might not be the term I would use, but I concede the blogger's point that "cult" and "religion" have the same semantic relationship as "terrorist" and "freedom fighter": it depends on where you're standing.
But we're definitely all about the doom. In our defense, though, every religion is about doom. The basic premise of faith is, "you are there. You oughta be here instead. If you don't come over here, bad things will happen." Certainly we vary as to where "here" is and the appropriate method to get from the one place to the other, but as a general rule religion says things have got to change and it knows the way. It really doesn't have any other purpose.
So why does Bronze Blog think this is an insight worth blogging about? Well, for one thing, I've noticed there are a number of things that anti-Christians think of as "shocking revelations" that most Christians have long since assimilated into their understanding of how complex a relationship with God really is. I think some people really believe that as soon as they tell me that Jesus cursed a fig tree the scales will drop from my eyes and I'll renounce my deluded ways forever. Of course, scales dropping from the eyes is itself a Biblical phenomenon, but I digress.
On the other hand, maybe Bronze Blog is not so far afield. Maybe we have come to the point where Christians do think of apocalyptic nature of our faith as a "shocking revelation." Maybe we've become so comfortable and satisfied with the status quo that we really do believe that "God’s in his heaven: All’s right with the world."
But that's a Robert Browning line, not a biblical one. The Bible says the world is broken and that God will not stand for it forever. And the only consolation we get is that the new world will be better than the old. Hey, we're a doom cult, not a despairing one.
What did you see today?
8/21/2007
I saw people sitting on benches.
Context
I was passing the Caddo Parish Courthouse on the way to the library today. There's a nice picture of it here at the website for Louisiana Film and Television (look for photo #25) that shows the benches out front. Today, as is usually the case, there were people sitting on the benches who didn't look like the people one normally sees inside the courthouse (lawyers, uniformed employees of the parish, etc.). Most of them didn't seem to be doing anything.
Commentary
A note for those of you who have never lived in Louisiana: a "parish" around here is like a "county" everywhere else in the United States. Because of recent tax law changes, when you order stuff on the phone you might have noticed that the operator will ask you what county you live in. I get a perverse kick out of saying, "I don't live in a county; I live in a parish." Sadly, I don't think they usually have a separate field for that in their form.
I remember that when I was a small child I used to frequently tell my mother I was bored. I also remember precisely when I stopped telling her that: it was when I learned to read. Members of my family will testify that subsequently there were many days when I accomplished little else besides devouring books, but at least I always had something to do! And it is still the case that I occupy some of my time with stuff like reading, watching TV, and surfing the Internet. I call these "input activities," because like #5, I'm just gathering input.
I don't spend nearly as much time on input as I did when I was kid, because now I'm expected to produce "output," like by bringing home a paycheck, distributing that money to other people, washing dishes, walking the dog, writing my blog, etc. I find I have a love/hate relationship with these obligations (even the blog-writing!). Sometimes I don't like anyone depending on me, because I really hate to disappoint people (or cats or dogs or birds) by not fulfilling every expectation. On the other hand, being counted on to perform a particular task, even a mundane one, makes me feel like an important part of God's plan. So I'm motivated to produce some output.
This led me to think about why the people sitting by the courthouse might not have anything to do. It's possible they didn't want to be doing anything, but assuming they were, in fact, bored, I wonder how that happened. If I start from the assumption that they are somewhat finanacially disadvantaged, it's possible that they didn't have the resources for a lot of "input activities," although the library has free books and computers right across the street. What worries me more is the idea that people might not have any "output activities" that they're expected to perform. Love/hate relationship aside, I would really hate it if no one depended on me for anything! How would I justify my existence?
Digging deeper, what would lead to someone not being expected to do anything? Well, maybe it starts from a scenario I remember from my own childhood. I was the youngest in my family by quite a bit, so I often felt like there was nothing special for me to do because my siblings had already taken all the available roles (athlete, brain, and yes, even troublemaker). What was left for me? Maybe the people sitting on benches feel like everything's already been done and there's nothing left for them.
Or could it be worse than that? Could it be that they were depended upon at one time and fell short, so everyone in their lives has decided not to expect anything at all? How must that feel, carrying both people's disappointment and their expectation of more disappointment? Helplessness is the feeling that we can't do anything. What about the feeling that no one want us to try? Pointlessness? Irrelevance?
No way! God does not work like that. When everyone else has written us off, God still believes in us. You know how much? He put His mark of protection on the very first murderer. The most revered of His patriarchs had a speech impediment. Peter denied his savior three times in a matter of hours, and he still got to be the founder of the Christian church!
God expects great output from the most downtrodden and disappointing people and you don't want to get in the way of what God expects. So how can we get behind it instead? How can we help people who don't seem to have anything to do find their true calling? Can we start by looking through God's eyes instead of our own?
Who did you see today?
I was passing the Caddo Parish Courthouse on the way to the library today. There's a nice picture of it here at the website for Louisiana Film and Television (look for photo #25) that shows the benches out front. Today, as is usually the case, there were people sitting on the benches who didn't look like the people one normally sees inside the courthouse (lawyers, uniformed employees of the parish, etc.). Most of them didn't seem to be doing anything.
Commentary
A note for those of you who have never lived in Louisiana: a "parish" around here is like a "county" everywhere else in the United States. Because of recent tax law changes, when you order stuff on the phone you might have noticed that the operator will ask you what county you live in. I get a perverse kick out of saying, "I don't live in a county; I live in a parish." Sadly, I don't think they usually have a separate field for that in their form.
I remember that when I was a small child I used to frequently tell my mother I was bored. I also remember precisely when I stopped telling her that: it was when I learned to read. Members of my family will testify that subsequently there were many days when I accomplished little else besides devouring books, but at least I always had something to do! And it is still the case that I occupy some of my time with stuff like reading, watching TV, and surfing the Internet. I call these "input activities," because like #5, I'm just gathering input.
I don't spend nearly as much time on input as I did when I was kid, because now I'm expected to produce "output," like by bringing home a paycheck, distributing that money to other people, washing dishes, walking the dog, writing my blog, etc. I find I have a love/hate relationship with these obligations (even the blog-writing!). Sometimes I don't like anyone depending on me, because I really hate to disappoint people (or cats or dogs or birds) by not fulfilling every expectation. On the other hand, being counted on to perform a particular task, even a mundane one, makes me feel like an important part of God's plan. So I'm motivated to produce some output.
This led me to think about why the people sitting by the courthouse might not have anything to do. It's possible they didn't want to be doing anything, but assuming they were, in fact, bored, I wonder how that happened. If I start from the assumption that they are somewhat finanacially disadvantaged, it's possible that they didn't have the resources for a lot of "input activities," although the library has free books and computers right across the street. What worries me more is the idea that people might not have any "output activities" that they're expected to perform. Love/hate relationship aside, I would really hate it if no one depended on me for anything! How would I justify my existence?
Digging deeper, what would lead to someone not being expected to do anything? Well, maybe it starts from a scenario I remember from my own childhood. I was the youngest in my family by quite a bit, so I often felt like there was nothing special for me to do because my siblings had already taken all the available roles (athlete, brain, and yes, even troublemaker). What was left for me? Maybe the people sitting on benches feel like everything's already been done and there's nothing left for them.
Or could it be worse than that? Could it be that they were depended upon at one time and fell short, so everyone in their lives has decided not to expect anything at all? How must that feel, carrying both people's disappointment and their expectation of more disappointment? Helplessness is the feeling that we can't do anything. What about the feeling that no one want us to try? Pointlessness? Irrelevance?
No way! God does not work like that. When everyone else has written us off, God still believes in us. You know how much? He put His mark of protection on the very first murderer. The most revered of His patriarchs had a speech impediment. Peter denied his savior three times in a matter of hours, and he still got to be the founder of the Christian church!
God expects great output from the most downtrodden and disappointing people and you don't want to get in the way of what God expects. So how can we get behind it instead? How can we help people who don't seem to have anything to do find their true calling? Can we start by looking through God's eyes instead of our own?
Who did you see today?
8/13/2007
I saw single-minded salmon
Context
I'm in Juneau, Alaska for vacation this week. Juneau is on the Gastineau Channel, where scads of salmon come after they've matured to swim up their home streams, spawn and die, so I've had quite a few chances to see the swimming upstream portion of this cycle. There are many obstacles, both manmade and natural, preventing the salmon from getting to their destination. These include pools where the water gets too shallow for the salmon to breathe when the tide goes out.
Commentary
My title up there is a misnomer because salmon, of course, are not single-minded. They have no minds at all. They have a biological imperative that compels them to swim upstream. As a human being though, my tendency is to anthropomorphize and say, "what are those salmon thinking?"
As I was watching the salmon making their way up a particular stream today, I thought I saw a couple saying to themselves, "aha! I've found the easy way to get up this stream and now I'll get there before everyone else and have a really successful spawn!" Actually, they were headed straight for one of those shallows I mentioned above, where several of their dead buddies had already created a feast for seagulls.
So this made me think about single-mindedness. Salmon have no choice in the matter, but we do. Do we get so focused on immediate goals that we fail to see the consequences of our actions? Do we look for the quick answer instead of considering the longer path that might have better rewards? Can we learn something from fish that have no minds at all?
What did you see today?
I'm in Juneau, Alaska for vacation this week. Juneau is on the Gastineau Channel, where scads of salmon come after they've matured to swim up their home streams, spawn and die, so I've had quite a few chances to see the swimming upstream portion of this cycle. There are many obstacles, both manmade and natural, preventing the salmon from getting to their destination. These include pools where the water gets too shallow for the salmon to breathe when the tide goes out.
Commentary
My title up there is a misnomer because salmon, of course, are not single-minded. They have no minds at all. They have a biological imperative that compels them to swim upstream. As a human being though, my tendency is to anthropomorphize and say, "what are those salmon thinking?"
As I was watching the salmon making their way up a particular stream today, I thought I saw a couple saying to themselves, "aha! I've found the easy way to get up this stream and now I'll get there before everyone else and have a really successful spawn!" Actually, they were headed straight for one of those shallows I mentioned above, where several of their dead buddies had already created a feast for seagulls.
So this made me think about single-mindedness. Salmon have no choice in the matter, but we do. Do we get so focused on immediate goals that we fail to see the consequences of our actions? Do we look for the quick answer instead of considering the longer path that might have better rewards? Can we learn something from fish that have no minds at all?
What did you see today?
7/27/2007
I saw some people sitting around talking
Context
I went to give blood today. The person who attended to me struggled with almost all of the tasks associated with drawing blood and the end result was that my pint had to be discarded due to air contamination. Most of the time she was struggling, four or five of her coworkers were sitting around talking.
Commentary
Because of the Quaker testimony on integrity, I try to make the Context part of my blog as straightforward and fact-based as possible. Now that I'm in Commentary, I can tell you I was royally pissed off about the situation this morning.
I am what they call a baby blood donor, so I try to donate regularly. I enjoy the chance to do something that helps out and normally causes me very little trouble. Today's missteps at the blood collection site not only inconvenienced me, they made it impossible for me to donate for another eight weeks, which is likely to inconvenience some babies! So I'm a little perturbed about that.
However, I found the woman's coworkers blasé attitude even more disturbing. It's entirely possible that there was nothing they could have done to improve the situation, but from my viewpoint they looked like their work was of no consequence at all to them.
So that got me thinking about salvation. You don't really want to know how my mind works, because you'll become just as crazy as me, but here's what happened: my husband and I had a discussion about religious universalism yesterday in which I was generally in favor of it (my opinion on this topic changes almost daily). His main objection to universalism is that it fails to give enough importance to God sending his Son to die for us. In response I said, "yeah, but salvation doesn't seem all that important to some people."
That made me wonder why salvation is more important to me than many people I know, so I resolved to spend some time thinking about it today. Here's the progression I then went through: I think salvation is important because I believe in sin, which I know is not true of all everyone. Most of the people I know who don't believe in sin are moral relativists. I think moral relativism starts from a good place, i.e. "there are different moral standards in different contexts." However, it too often seems to end up at "since there's no absolute morality, it doesn't matter what I do!"
Do you see how I got back to the blood center workers? I believe that the moment we start believing that what we do doesn't matter, we start doing wrong. I also believe we get really depressed because it sucks to not matter, but that's an issue for another time.
What did you see today?
I went to give blood today. The person who attended to me struggled with almost all of the tasks associated with drawing blood and the end result was that my pint had to be discarded due to air contamination. Most of the time she was struggling, four or five of her coworkers were sitting around talking.
Commentary
Because of the Quaker testimony on integrity, I try to make the Context part of my blog as straightforward and fact-based as possible. Now that I'm in Commentary, I can tell you I was royally pissed off about the situation this morning.
I am what they call a baby blood donor, so I try to donate regularly. I enjoy the chance to do something that helps out and normally causes me very little trouble. Today's missteps at the blood collection site not only inconvenienced me, they made it impossible for me to donate for another eight weeks, which is likely to inconvenience some babies! So I'm a little perturbed about that.
However, I found the woman's coworkers blasé attitude even more disturbing. It's entirely possible that there was nothing they could have done to improve the situation, but from my viewpoint they looked like their work was of no consequence at all to them.
So that got me thinking about salvation. You don't really want to know how my mind works, because you'll become just as crazy as me, but here's what happened: my husband and I had a discussion about religious universalism yesterday in which I was generally in favor of it (my opinion on this topic changes almost daily). His main objection to universalism is that it fails to give enough importance to God sending his Son to die for us. In response I said, "yeah, but salvation doesn't seem all that important to some people."
That made me wonder why salvation is more important to me than many people I know, so I resolved to spend some time thinking about it today. Here's the progression I then went through: I think salvation is important because I believe in sin, which I know is not true of all everyone. Most of the people I know who don't believe in sin are moral relativists. I think moral relativism starts from a good place, i.e. "there are different moral standards in different contexts." However, it too often seems to end up at "since there's no absolute morality, it doesn't matter what I do!"
Do you see how I got back to the blood center workers? I believe that the moment we start believing that what we do doesn't matter, we start doing wrong. I also believe we get really depressed because it sucks to not matter, but that's an issue for another time.
What did you see today?
7/18/2007
I heard a student compliment my patience
Context
I teach computer classes at the Shreve Memorial Library, both for staff and patrons. Most of my students in the patron classes are seniors. Today a student praised me for being patient even though they learn slowly.
Commentary
I get the "patient" comment a lot. I was taught that it's rude to reject a compliment, so I always say, "thank you," or "you're kind to say so," or whatever. However, what I was thinking today was, "it's not like I have something better to do."
Said in a certain tone of voice, the above sounds churlish, but I mean it sincerely. The library pays me to teach people to use computers, so at that moment I don't have anything else I'm supposed to be doing. I'm not actually being patient; I'm just doing my job.
In my mind, here's what impatience is: it's what happens anytime I believe my current situation (waiting in traffic, going to school, listening to an elderly aunt tell the same story for the umpteenth time) is keeping me from truly important business. Psychologically, it's a bizarre combination of helplessness and arrogance. I feel that I have no control over the circumstances, but if I did I would put my time to much better use. As a person who has a strong sense of time being a precious commodity, I can get very impatient indeed.
My religious beliefs make this a problem, though. A certain amount of helpless feeling reminds me that I'm in God's hands, so that's a good thing. However, the arrogance that asserts I can put my time to better use than God does is foolish indeed. It's forgetting what my real job on this earth is and who's the boss. I don't actually have better things to do than what He places before me.
What did you see today?
I teach computer classes at the Shreve Memorial Library, both for staff and patrons. Most of my students in the patron classes are seniors. Today a student praised me for being patient even though they learn slowly.
Commentary
I get the "patient" comment a lot. I was taught that it's rude to reject a compliment, so I always say, "thank you," or "you're kind to say so," or whatever. However, what I was thinking today was, "it's not like I have something better to do."
Said in a certain tone of voice, the above sounds churlish, but I mean it sincerely. The library pays me to teach people to use computers, so at that moment I don't have anything else I'm supposed to be doing. I'm not actually being patient; I'm just doing my job.
In my mind, here's what impatience is: it's what happens anytime I believe my current situation (waiting in traffic, going to school, listening to an elderly aunt tell the same story for the umpteenth time) is keeping me from truly important business. Psychologically, it's a bizarre combination of helplessness and arrogance. I feel that I have no control over the circumstances, but if I did I would put my time to much better use. As a person who has a strong sense of time being a precious commodity, I can get very impatient indeed.
My religious beliefs make this a problem, though. A certain amount of helpless feeling reminds me that I'm in God's hands, so that's a good thing. However, the arrogance that asserts I can put my time to better use than God does is foolish indeed. It's forgetting what my real job on this earth is and who's the boss. I don't actually have better things to do than what He places before me.
What did you see today?
6/14/2007
I saw a comment about US military aid
Context
I'm currently reading the December 1999 edition of the Dominican Republic and Haiti country studies published by the Library of Congress. You can read the Dominican Republic portion online here and the Haiti portion here. I'm reading them together in a book I checked out from my library.
The Dominican Republic one contains an analysis of how the role of the military changes according to who holds the presidency. For example, Jorge Blanco, the president from 1982 to 1986, forced massive numbers of officers that he perceived to be disloyal to him to retire, which apparently prompted this response: "the United States . . . complained that its military training funds were being wasted as careers were cut short." I laughed out loud when I read that part.
Commentary
I'm concerned that if you read my blog often enough, you'll think all I read are books on international affairs. I actually read quite a few less serious things (for example, I just polished off the softcover Bizarro World today), but I don't necessarily "see" anything in them.
I'm a religious pacifist. I feel a little vindicated any time the military is thwarted. And when nobody is really hurt, I can even laugh about it. On a deeper level though, I'm thinking about what causes the US to send military aid to a country rather than just invading it. When it comes to warfare, the United States sometimes seems to want to keep an arm's length away by using the folowing logic:
1) We don't want to fight them here, so we'll fight them there.
2) We don't particularly want to fight them ourselves, so we'll help them fight each other.
How many things can I find wrong with this strategy? Well, more than two.
1) It's violent. Now matter who's doing the fighting, someone's getting hurt.
2) It's callous. La, la, la, it doesn't take place on our turf or kill our family members, so it doesn't really matter.
3) It's cowardly. For crying out loud, if we really think a cause is worth fighting for, we should put our lives where our mouths are.
Perhaps most damning of all, it's ineffectual. The United States started using this strategy nearly a century ago, at the outbreak of World War I. Ever since then, events have followed roughly this chronology: first, the United States develops certain goals. Then we provide aid to another country, faction, or dictator, believing that entity will pursue our goals. Later, we find that the other entity has actually pursued different goals, sometimes goals that are directly contrary to American interests (anyone remember who armed the Taliban in the first place?). Finally, the United States is forced to either abandon its goals or invade with actual American troops. Because of some inherent national characteristic, we usually choose the "invading" option. Often our troops can't accomplish the original goals either, but we go through a lot of bodies on both sides before we figure that out.
In light of this history, I think we're getting off pretty easy when the only "waste" is Dominican military careers being cut short. So I laugh.
What did you see today?
I'm currently reading the December 1999 edition of the Dominican Republic and Haiti country studies published by the Library of Congress. You can read the Dominican Republic portion online here and the Haiti portion here. I'm reading them together in a book I checked out from my library.
The Dominican Republic one contains an analysis of how the role of the military changes according to who holds the presidency. For example, Jorge Blanco, the president from 1982 to 1986, forced massive numbers of officers that he perceived to be disloyal to him to retire, which apparently prompted this response: "the United States . . . complained that its military training funds were being wasted as careers were cut short." I laughed out loud when I read that part.
Commentary
I'm concerned that if you read my blog often enough, you'll think all I read are books on international affairs. I actually read quite a few less serious things (for example, I just polished off the softcover Bizarro World today), but I don't necessarily "see" anything in them.
I'm a religious pacifist. I feel a little vindicated any time the military is thwarted. And when nobody is really hurt, I can even laugh about it. On a deeper level though, I'm thinking about what causes the US to send military aid to a country rather than just invading it. When it comes to warfare, the United States sometimes seems to want to keep an arm's length away by using the folowing logic:
1) We don't want to fight them here, so we'll fight them there.
2) We don't particularly want to fight them ourselves, so we'll help them fight each other.
How many things can I find wrong with this strategy? Well, more than two.
1) It's violent. Now matter who's doing the fighting, someone's getting hurt.
2) It's callous. La, la, la, it doesn't take place on our turf or kill our family members, so it doesn't really matter.
3) It's cowardly. For crying out loud, if we really think a cause is worth fighting for, we should put our lives where our mouths are.
Perhaps most damning of all, it's ineffectual. The United States started using this strategy nearly a century ago, at the outbreak of World War I. Ever since then, events have followed roughly this chronology: first, the United States develops certain goals. Then we provide aid to another country, faction, or dictator, believing that entity will pursue our goals. Later, we find that the other entity has actually pursued different goals, sometimes goals that are directly contrary to American interests (anyone remember who armed the Taliban in the first place?). Finally, the United States is forced to either abandon its goals or invade with actual American troops. Because of some inherent national characteristic, we usually choose the "invading" option. Often our troops can't accomplish the original goals either, but we go through a lot of bodies on both sides before we figure that out.
In light of this history, I think we're getting off pretty easy when the only "waste" is Dominican military careers being cut short. So I laugh.
What did you see today?
6/09/2007
I heard Friends talk about goals.
Context
At Friends Meeting today we were talking about male and female personality characteristics. In that context, Friend A asked, "so do you have goals for your life?" A couple of us said, "no," but Friend B said, "yes, I have lots!" Then Friend A said to Friend B, "so you're a more goal-oriented person than the rest of us," and I thought to myself, "no, I'm a goal-oriented person; I just don't have goals!"
Commentary
What's going on with my seemingly contradictory view of goals? Well, when someone talks about a person "having goals," I think of long-term visions for the future. I have those; I just lack the motivation and discipline to carry them out. For example, I would like to shed about 30 pounds. However, I have so little intention of either eating significantly less or exercising significantly more that it seems wrong to call that a "goal."
"Goal-oriented," on the other hand, means something different to me. It makes me think more in terms of my actual activities, as opposed to the things I want to do or think I ought to do. Frequently as I go through my day I ask myself, "why are you doing this?" In other words, what goal am I hoping to accomplish?
I find that asking myself this question helps me in a couple of ways. One, it prevents me from walking down fruitless paths. So if I ask myself, "why are you doing this particular activity?", the answer might be, "in order to teach people to use the computer." If I then realize that the activity I'm doing doesn't actually help people to learn, I can just stop doing it! It's easier to do that if I'm focusing on a goal instead of my own ego, a la "wah! I really like that activity!"
On the flip side, being goal-oriented helps me examine not only my activities, but also the goals themselves. I've had this internal conversation more than once:
"Lynn, you're gossiping. Why are you doing that?"
"Well, I really want to impress the people I'm with."
"Really. So your goal is to impress the sort of people who are impressed by gossip. Is that really a worthy goal?"
My mother tried to inculcate this idea in me countless times when I was a teenager. 30 years later, I'm finally getting it. She's currently practicing her "I told you so" speech in heaven.
Mind you, "worthy" doesn't necessarily mean "lofty." Sometimes the conversation goes more like this:
"Why are you watching this episode of Sports Night on DVD that you've seen five times before?"
"I'm tired, I like Aaron Sorkin's writing and Peter Krause is easy on the eyes."
Resting and appreciating the whole of God's creation. Perfectly worthy goals.
What did you see today?
At Friends Meeting today we were talking about male and female personality characteristics. In that context, Friend A asked, "so do you have goals for your life?" A couple of us said, "no," but Friend B said, "yes, I have lots!" Then Friend A said to Friend B, "so you're a more goal-oriented person than the rest of us," and I thought to myself, "no, I'm a goal-oriented person; I just don't have goals!"
Commentary
What's going on with my seemingly contradictory view of goals? Well, when someone talks about a person "having goals," I think of long-term visions for the future. I have those; I just lack the motivation and discipline to carry them out. For example, I would like to shed about 30 pounds. However, I have so little intention of either eating significantly less or exercising significantly more that it seems wrong to call that a "goal."
"Goal-oriented," on the other hand, means something different to me. It makes me think more in terms of my actual activities, as opposed to the things I want to do or think I ought to do. Frequently as I go through my day I ask myself, "why are you doing this?" In other words, what goal am I hoping to accomplish?
I find that asking myself this question helps me in a couple of ways. One, it prevents me from walking down fruitless paths. So if I ask myself, "why are you doing this particular activity?", the answer might be, "in order to teach people to use the computer." If I then realize that the activity I'm doing doesn't actually help people to learn, I can just stop doing it! It's easier to do that if I'm focusing on a goal instead of my own ego, a la "wah! I really like that activity!"
On the flip side, being goal-oriented helps me examine not only my activities, but also the goals themselves. I've had this internal conversation more than once:
"Lynn, you're gossiping. Why are you doing that?"
"Well, I really want to impress the people I'm with."
"Really. So your goal is to impress the sort of people who are impressed by gossip. Is that really a worthy goal?"
My mother tried to inculcate this idea in me countless times when I was a teenager. 30 years later, I'm finally getting it. She's currently practicing her "I told you so" speech in heaven.
Mind you, "worthy" doesn't necessarily mean "lofty." Sometimes the conversation goes more like this:
"Why are you watching this episode of Sports Night on DVD that you've seen five times before?"
"I'm tired, I like Aaron Sorkin's writing and Peter Krause is easy on the eyes."
Resting and appreciating the whole of God's creation. Perfectly worthy goals.
What did you see today?
5/18/2007
I saw the mayor of Shreveport's title
Context
Shreve Memorial Library, where I work, has a Board of Control. Up until today, the Board's webpage hadn't been updated recently, so it still listed the privious mayor, who's white, as anex oficio member. Now our current mayor, who's black, is on there instead. As per normal protocol, the mayor's "The Honorable" title is placed before his name on the page.
Commentary
Quakers have various testimonies that over the years have led to a general disregard for honorifics. Earlham College has a contemporary explanation of this practice about one-third of the way down this page.
Quakers have no creedal statements, but I generally follow most of my church's traditional teachings. Not this one, though. Lately I've felt compeled to start adding formal shows of respect to my interactions with others, rather than taking them away.
This inspiration came largely from a coworker I had shortly after I arrived in Shreveport, who expressed some dismay that a person had called her by her first name without her permission. In our current cultural context, I don't think she felt her obvious social superiority was not being acknowledged. No, the use of her first name made her feel denigrated because, in contrast to the person addressing her, she was a) female and b) over 50.
I've been using computers for 25 years and have gotten pretty good at least at the application side of things. I teach beginners' classes to senior citizens who have never touched a mouse. You'd better believe I call every one Mr. or Ms. as appropriate. I feel I owe it to them to show respect for everything they have achieved, especially since others have often made them feel stupid about not having this particular set of skills.
I also always call President Bush "President Bush." It is important for me to remind myself that even though I disagree with a person about 80% of the time, he is owed a certain amount of respect for having legally won two presidential elections. If you want to disagree with me about the "legally won" part, we can have a lengthy discussion, including a comparison to the "Compromise of 1876," some other time.
So what about Mayor Glover of Shreveport? He is such a confident guy that it's hard to picture anyone dissing him to his face, and impossible to imagine it bothering him. I also don't generally disagree with his policies. He's still going to get the "Mayor Glover" treatment from me every time, though. Shreveport is majority African-American, but this is the first time a black person has been elected mayor. Furthermore, it was quite a close election with some very unlovely black mayor=unsafe streets rhetoric being tossed around. At this point, I feel like as a white person I owe the entire African-American community an honorific.
What did you see today?
Shreve Memorial Library, where I work, has a Board of Control. Up until today, the Board's webpage hadn't been updated recently, so it still listed the privious mayor, who's white, as an
Commentary
Quakers have various testimonies that over the years have led to a general disregard for honorifics. Earlham College has a contemporary explanation of this practice about one-third of the way down this page.
Quakers have no creedal statements, but I generally follow most of my church's traditional teachings. Not this one, though. Lately I've felt compeled to start adding formal shows of respect to my interactions with others, rather than taking them away.
This inspiration came largely from a coworker I had shortly after I arrived in Shreveport, who expressed some dismay that a person had called her by her first name without her permission. In our current cultural context, I don't think she felt her obvious social superiority was not being acknowledged. No, the use of her first name made her feel denigrated because, in contrast to the person addressing her, she was a) female and b) over 50.
I've been using computers for 25 years and have gotten pretty good at least at the application side of things. I teach beginners' classes to senior citizens who have never touched a mouse. You'd better believe I call every one Mr. or Ms. as appropriate. I feel I owe it to them to show respect for everything they have achieved, especially since others have often made them feel stupid about not having this particular set of skills.
I also always call President Bush "President Bush." It is important for me to remind myself that even though I disagree with a person about 80% of the time, he is owed a certain amount of respect for having legally won two presidential elections. If you want to disagree with me about the "legally won" part, we can have a lengthy discussion, including a comparison to the "Compromise of 1876," some other time.
So what about Mayor Glover of Shreveport? He is such a confident guy that it's hard to picture anyone dissing him to his face, and impossible to imagine it bothering him. I also don't generally disagree with his policies. He's still going to get the "Mayor Glover" treatment from me every time, though. Shreveport is majority African-American, but this is the first time a black person has been elected mayor. Furthermore, it was quite a close election with some very unlovely black mayor=unsafe streets rhetoric being tossed around. At this point, I feel like as a white person I owe the entire African-American community an honorific.
What did you see today?
4/29/2007
I saw the hedge around my alma mater.
Context
I’m in Houston today, so I visited the Rice University campus, which is right across the street from the Texas Medical Center. Rice has a wholly contiguous campus that is surrounded by a hedge. The hedge is not physically imposing enough to prevent anyone or anything from coming on campus, but it does clearly delineate the borders.
I graduated from Rice twenty years ago, so of course I see changes whenever I go back and visit. For example, sometime after my departure the Texas Medical Center built a really ugly building just beyond the Rice hedge.
Commentary
I was planning to go to church this morning, but instead I was moved to visit Rice. As I was walking around trying to figure out what drew me there, I saw this much-taller-than-everything-around-it, windowless building and was somewhat afraid that it might be on the campus itself. But no, as I got closer I realized that my beloved hedge was standing guard, keeping me from having to think that some of my alumni giving might have contributed to this monstrosity. As I sat on a bench facing away from both the ugly Med Center building and the hedge I started thinking about the protective aspects of communities.
Rice is an interesting place to go to school. It's an academically challenging but close-knit community. For four years Rice gathers people together and tells them that inside the hedges, it’s safe to be smart and obsessive and all-around different from the norm. In spite of the fact that the hedge is a puny little thing, I still felt shielded there.
It’s not just a shield, though. During those four years (or five or six or whatever) Rice tries to prepare you to go out in the world and accomplish something, not only by making you smarter, but by giving you the emotional tools to answer some of the crap the world throws at you. Four years of being told it’s great to be a nerd makes you likely to continue to believe it even twenty, thirty and forty years later.
I am blessed that I continue to have two communities that work the same way for me even today. My marriage is one. People get and stay married for any of number of reasons, but both my husband and I have come to treasure the refuge aspect of our relationship. We feel like we really can go out and do battle with all the problems of this world because we know someone will love us at the end of the day. Or sometimes in the middle, when we really want to scream! At its best, our marriage is not a hiding place, but a place where we can both rest and be reassured that we are capable of facing the next challenge to come.
My Quaker meeting is another such community. We're a pretty heterogeneous group in terms of religious beliefs and values, but we hold sacred the idea that everyone should be safe at the meeting. Not unchallenged, not coddled, but safe. It's a place where a person may hear a hundred times, "that's different from my experience," but will never hear, "you're wrong to think that way." So we get to examine the Spirit of God within us in an atmosphere that celebrates that Spirit and inspires us to go share it with the rest of the world.
I think everyone would benefit from belonging to these types of communities and I'd like to give you some advice about finding and/or building your own. Unfortunately, I can't. As far as I can tell, I came to both of these communities by the grace of God. So instead I'll pray that God provides you with the gift of a supportive community as well. I'll also invite you to come to our Quaker meeting at 10:00 a.m. Saturday mornings at Charlie Cook's Art Studio, 3500 Texas Blvd., Texarkana, TX. My marriage is not accepting any new members at this time.
What did you see today?
I’m in Houston today, so I visited the Rice University campus, which is right across the street from the Texas Medical Center. Rice has a wholly contiguous campus that is surrounded by a hedge. The hedge is not physically imposing enough to prevent anyone or anything from coming on campus, but it does clearly delineate the borders.
I graduated from Rice twenty years ago, so of course I see changes whenever I go back and visit. For example, sometime after my departure the Texas Medical Center built a really ugly building just beyond the Rice hedge.
Commentary
I was planning to go to church this morning, but instead I was moved to visit Rice. As I was walking around trying to figure out what drew me there, I saw this much-taller-than-everything-around-it, windowless building and was somewhat afraid that it might be on the campus itself. But no, as I got closer I realized that my beloved hedge was standing guard, keeping me from having to think that some of my alumni giving might have contributed to this monstrosity. As I sat on a bench facing away from both the ugly Med Center building and the hedge I started thinking about the protective aspects of communities.
Rice is an interesting place to go to school. It's an academically challenging but close-knit community. For four years Rice gathers people together and tells them that inside the hedges, it’s safe to be smart and obsessive and all-around different from the norm. In spite of the fact that the hedge is a puny little thing, I still felt shielded there.
It’s not just a shield, though. During those four years (or five or six or whatever) Rice tries to prepare you to go out in the world and accomplish something, not only by making you smarter, but by giving you the emotional tools to answer some of the crap the world throws at you. Four years of being told it’s great to be a nerd makes you likely to continue to believe it even twenty, thirty and forty years later.
I am blessed that I continue to have two communities that work the same way for me even today. My marriage is one. People get and stay married for any of number of reasons, but both my husband and I have come to treasure the refuge aspect of our relationship. We feel like we really can go out and do battle with all the problems of this world because we know someone will love us at the end of the day. Or sometimes in the middle, when we really want to scream! At its best, our marriage is not a hiding place, but a place where we can both rest and be reassured that we are capable of facing the next challenge to come.
My Quaker meeting is another such community. We're a pretty heterogeneous group in terms of religious beliefs and values, but we hold sacred the idea that everyone should be safe at the meeting. Not unchallenged, not coddled, but safe. It's a place where a person may hear a hundred times, "that's different from my experience," but will never hear, "you're wrong to think that way." So we get to examine the Spirit of God within us in an atmosphere that celebrates that Spirit and inspires us to go share it with the rest of the world.
I think everyone would benefit from belonging to these types of communities and I'd like to give you some advice about finding and/or building your own. Unfortunately, I can't. As far as I can tell, I came to both of these communities by the grace of God. So instead I'll pray that God provides you with the gift of a supportive community as well. I'll also invite you to come to our Quaker meeting at 10:00 a.m. Saturday mornings at Charlie Cook's Art Studio, 3500 Texas Blvd., Texarkana, TX. My marriage is not accepting any new members at this time.
What did you see today?
4/14/2007
I heard a "just" prayer
Context
A couple of other Friends and I volunteered today at the Randy Sams Shelter for the Homeless in Texarkana, Texas. While we were there, another woman who was volunteering from the Partnership Church of Texarkana asked us to gather and pray with someone. That woman said a prayer out loud that included the word "just" a lot, e.g "I just want to thank you, Father," "I just pray you'll heal our friend," etc.
Commentary
I don't know where the "just" style of prayer comes from, but I first started hearing it about twenty years ago. I wonder if it came from the 1970's "Jesus freaks." The cadence of it sort of sounds like an invitation to mellow out and rap with God. Prayer as casual conversation instead of a big deal.
I find "just" prayers a little jarring. I don't think God has any trouble listening to them, but the very casual sound that may make them attractive to some repels me. I think prayer is a big deal. When someone uses the word "just" a lot, it sounds like they haven't really considered what they're saying to God, they're "just" throwing stuff out there. God loves us and listens to us always, but shouldn't we love Him enough to put a little thought into what we're going to say?
In fact, given that God does love us, another problem emerges. When I say "I just" in everyday conversation, it's usually a fear response. I want to say something, but I think I'm going to get in trouble for it, like "don't get mad at me, but I just don't think four-inch heels are appropriate for horseback riding." It's a phrase with a built-in cringe.
If this is the case, "I just" is a wildly innapropriate way to talk to God. Jesus uses a metaphor of God as Father, but hopefully we all understand that God is better than any earthly father in that He always wants to hear what we have to say When I pray I say, "please," or "if it's Your will" to God in order to be respectful, but I don't grovel. I'm a child of God; I get to ask for stuff with confidence that He will always listen and provide what I need.
What did you see today?
A couple of other Friends and I volunteered today at the Randy Sams Shelter for the Homeless in Texarkana, Texas. While we were there, another woman who was volunteering from the Partnership Church of Texarkana asked us to gather and pray with someone. That woman said a prayer out loud that included the word "just" a lot, e.g "I just want to thank you, Father," "I just pray you'll heal our friend," etc.
Commentary
I don't know where the "just" style of prayer comes from, but I first started hearing it about twenty years ago. I wonder if it came from the 1970's "Jesus freaks." The cadence of it sort of sounds like an invitation to mellow out and rap with God. Prayer as casual conversation instead of a big deal.
I find "just" prayers a little jarring. I don't think God has any trouble listening to them, but the very casual sound that may make them attractive to some repels me. I think prayer is a big deal. When someone uses the word "just" a lot, it sounds like they haven't really considered what they're saying to God, they're "just" throwing stuff out there. God loves us and listens to us always, but shouldn't we love Him enough to put a little thought into what we're going to say?
In fact, given that God does love us, another problem emerges. When I say "I just" in everyday conversation, it's usually a fear response. I want to say something, but I think I'm going to get in trouble for it, like "don't get mad at me, but I just don't think four-inch heels are appropriate for horseback riding." It's a phrase with a built-in cringe.
If this is the case, "I just" is a wildly innapropriate way to talk to God. Jesus uses a metaphor of God as Father, but hopefully we all understand that God is better than any earthly father in that He always wants to hear what we have to say When I pray I say, "please," or "if it's Your will" to God in order to be respectful, but I don't grovel. I'm a child of God; I get to ask for stuff with confidence that He will always listen and provide what I need.
What did you see today?
4/13/2007
I saw a list of best-reviewed sports movies
Context
Rotten Tomatoes is a website that compiles movie reviews and gives each film a score base on the number of negative and positive reviews. Lately they have taken to compiling Best and Worst lists including the recently-published Top Sports Movies.
Commentary
This Rotten Tomates feature appealed to me immediately because I like both sports and movies. However, I was puzzled by the fact that even though these were the best-reviewed sports movies, the critics took great pains to point out on several of them that the plot was not very original. I find this a bizarre standard to use for any kind of storytelling. I believe movies are made and books are written to illustrate universal human truths and frankly, there's a limited number of those to go around. I think it's particularly unfair to judge sports movies this way because most sports movies have the exact same plot: underdog overcomes enormous odds and triumphs. It's why we go see a sports movie, for crying out loud!
I think the critics are looking for originality in the wrong place: what makes a great sports movie is using that same timeworn plot and still creating an unexpected reaction in the viewer. For example, I love the movie Remember the Titans. One of the reasons is because I find the Denzel Washington character is admirable, but not particularly likable. I'm not used to thinking the hero of a piece is kind of a jerk, and this is a pretty brave choice in a film that contains exactly one bankable star. Or take Field of Dreams. Every time I sit down to watch that movie, it looks like it's about baseball, and yet I end up thinking about something besides baseball when it's over. Now any movie that gets my brain moving gets a plus in my book, but Field of Dreams usually makes me consider something different every single time!
My favorite sports movie, beating out Remember the Titans by just a hair, is Major League. OK, silly slapstick comedy, same old sports movie plot, where's the surprise reaction there? Just this: every time I see the formerly-isolated "Wild Thing" come on the field to the adulation of thousands, I cry. Buckets. You want to know what's worse? I've seen this movie five or six times and I still cry every single time. I know what's coming, I can probably quote a great deal of the surrounding dialogue to you, and I still react. That's movie magic!
So the moral of the story is, it's not what you show your moviegoing audience that matters (sorry ILM!), it's how you help them see it differently. Hmm, is there a recurring blog theme in there somewhere?
What did you see today?
Rotten Tomatoes is a website that compiles movie reviews and gives each film a score base on the number of negative and positive reviews. Lately they have taken to compiling Best and Worst lists including the recently-published Top Sports Movies.
Commentary
This Rotten Tomates feature appealed to me immediately because I like both sports and movies. However, I was puzzled by the fact that even though these were the best-reviewed sports movies, the critics took great pains to point out on several of them that the plot was not very original. I find this a bizarre standard to use for any kind of storytelling. I believe movies are made and books are written to illustrate universal human truths and frankly, there's a limited number of those to go around. I think it's particularly unfair to judge sports movies this way because most sports movies have the exact same plot: underdog overcomes enormous odds and triumphs. It's why we go see a sports movie, for crying out loud!
I think the critics are looking for originality in the wrong place: what makes a great sports movie is using that same timeworn plot and still creating an unexpected reaction in the viewer. For example, I love the movie Remember the Titans. One of the reasons is because I find the Denzel Washington character is admirable, but not particularly likable. I'm not used to thinking the hero of a piece is kind of a jerk, and this is a pretty brave choice in a film that contains exactly one bankable star. Or take Field of Dreams. Every time I sit down to watch that movie, it looks like it's about baseball, and yet I end up thinking about something besides baseball when it's over. Now any movie that gets my brain moving gets a plus in my book, but Field of Dreams usually makes me consider something different every single time!
My favorite sports movie, beating out Remember the Titans by just a hair, is Major League. OK, silly slapstick comedy, same old sports movie plot, where's the surprise reaction there? Just this: every time I see the formerly-isolated "Wild Thing" come on the field to the adulation of thousands, I cry. Buckets. You want to know what's worse? I've seen this movie five or six times and I still cry every single time. I know what's coming, I can probably quote a great deal of the surrounding dialogue to you, and I still react. That's movie magic!
So the moral of the story is, it's not what you show your moviegoing audience that matters (sorry ILM!), it's how you help them see it differently. Hmm, is there a recurring blog theme in there somewhere?
What did you see today?
3/24/2007
I saw Jewish people touching the Torah
Context
My husband, Mark, belongs to the Shreveport-Bossier Go club. Ron, another member of the club, became Bar Mitzvah today (I think that's the correct usage, but my Hebrew comprehension is nothing to write home about). As part of the service, there was a parade with the Sefer Torah. Most of the people in the congregation touched the Torah, either with their hand or their prayer book, but Mark and I did not.
Commentary
Please don't think I'm being disrespectful when I say there was a parade with the Sefer Torah. In the order of service, it said, "a parade may follow," and at that point, Ron and his mom, who is the spiritual leader of the B'nai Zion congregation (no pressure there, I'm sure), walked around the sanctuary with the sacred scroll.
So why didn't Mark and I touch it? Short answer, we're not Jewish. The long answer (and it wouldn't really be a blog entry without that, would it?) has to do with my beliefs about why Jewish people do touch the Sefer Torah with such reverence, in most cases forsaking bare skin and using their prayer book instead.
First of all, let's take some ideas off the table. I don't think touching the Torah is an empty ritual. It is my hope that in a society where we strive for freedom of religion that no one would engage in meaningless worship activities. Also, given the rarity of Jewish people in the South, probably not a lot of pressure to perform such a gesture just for show. I also don't think it's a superstitious thing, like "touch the Sefer Torah, be blessed for the rest of the day," or smething like that.
No, what I think I saw today was people seeking physical contact with their heritage. My religious education has always taught me that the Jewish people were set apart from everyone else in this world by God Himself for one purpose: to inherit His mitzvoh (commandments). Touching the Torah is how one acknowledges, "this is who I am and why I was created."
So the end of my long answer is, "it's not who I am and why I was created." Being a Gentile and a Christian, mine is a different path. But to be in the same room with so many people making this simple but powerful statement about their identity and heritage? Well, I didn't touch, but I did cry.
What did you see today?
My husband, Mark, belongs to the Shreveport-Bossier Go club. Ron, another member of the club, became Bar Mitzvah today (I think that's the correct usage, but my Hebrew comprehension is nothing to write home about). As part of the service, there was a parade with the Sefer Torah. Most of the people in the congregation touched the Torah, either with their hand or their prayer book, but Mark and I did not.
Commentary
Please don't think I'm being disrespectful when I say there was a parade with the Sefer Torah. In the order of service, it said, "a parade may follow," and at that point, Ron and his mom, who is the spiritual leader of the B'nai Zion congregation (no pressure there, I'm sure), walked around the sanctuary with the sacred scroll.
So why didn't Mark and I touch it? Short answer, we're not Jewish. The long answer (and it wouldn't really be a blog entry without that, would it?) has to do with my beliefs about why Jewish people do touch the Sefer Torah with such reverence, in most cases forsaking bare skin and using their prayer book instead.
First of all, let's take some ideas off the table. I don't think touching the Torah is an empty ritual. It is my hope that in a society where we strive for freedom of religion that no one would engage in meaningless worship activities. Also, given the rarity of Jewish people in the South, probably not a lot of pressure to perform such a gesture just for show. I also don't think it's a superstitious thing, like "touch the Sefer Torah, be blessed for the rest of the day," or smething like that.
No, what I think I saw today was people seeking physical contact with their heritage. My religious education has always taught me that the Jewish people were set apart from everyone else in this world by God Himself for one purpose: to inherit His mitzvoh (commandments). Touching the Torah is how one acknowledges, "this is who I am and why I was created."
So the end of my long answer is, "it's not who I am and why I was created." Being a Gentile and a Christian, mine is a different path. But to be in the same room with so many people making this simple but powerful statement about their identity and heritage? Well, I didn't touch, but I did cry.
What did you see today?
3/13/2007
I saw a word in a book
Context
Currently, I'm reading The Art of Peace: Nobel Peace Laureates Discuss Human Rights, Conflict and Resolution. In it, Laureate Jody Williams talks about future plans for the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, which include enforcement of the existing treaty. "Impunity," she says, "is a horrific problem, obviously, and we do not want to contribute to impunity."
Commentary
Impunity is a horrific problem. If you have laws in place, but people think it doesn't matter if they obey them or not, then you might as well not have the laws at all. Malcolm Gladwell, in The Tipping Point, presents the case of the murder rate in New York dropping after Mayor Giuliani stepped up enforcement of misdemeanors like vandalism and subway turnstile-hopping. Apparently, when people no longer thought they could commit even small transgressions with impunity, the incidence of the most heinous of crimes went down as well.
In other words, society benefits when people believe what they do matters. This works for good as well as evil. In my last post I said that it's important to do something, but if you don't think anyone will care about what you do, why bother? In fact, this is often the excuse people use for not trying to right the wrongs of this world: "I'm just one person. Nothing I can do will have any impact." But are you really just one person? Do you not have any friends, neighbors or family members that are affected by your actions? Advertising gurus will tell you that word-of-mouth is the most powerful marketing tool in the world. Could the words from your mouth be the last straw that finally ends the practice of using child soldiers? You never know . . .
So here's a two-pronged strategy for you: first, behave as if what you do matters. It does to God, if no one else (see Matthew 6:1-18 for the positive and Numbers 32;1-24 for the negative). Now, try treating other people as if what they do matters as well. That'll give impunity a kick in the pants!
What did you see today?
Currently, I'm reading The Art of Peace: Nobel Peace Laureates Discuss Human Rights, Conflict and Resolution. In it, Laureate Jody Williams talks about future plans for the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, which include enforcement of the existing treaty. "Impunity," she says, "is a horrific problem, obviously, and we do not want to contribute to impunity."
Commentary
Impunity is a horrific problem. If you have laws in place, but people think it doesn't matter if they obey them or not, then you might as well not have the laws at all. Malcolm Gladwell, in The Tipping Point, presents the case of the murder rate in New York dropping after Mayor Giuliani stepped up enforcement of misdemeanors like vandalism and subway turnstile-hopping. Apparently, when people no longer thought they could commit even small transgressions with impunity, the incidence of the most heinous of crimes went down as well.
In other words, society benefits when people believe what they do matters. This works for good as well as evil. In my last post I said that it's important to do something, but if you don't think anyone will care about what you do, why bother? In fact, this is often the excuse people use for not trying to right the wrongs of this world: "I'm just one person. Nothing I can do will have any impact." But are you really just one person? Do you not have any friends, neighbors or family members that are affected by your actions? Advertising gurus will tell you that word-of-mouth is the most powerful marketing tool in the world. Could the words from your mouth be the last straw that finally ends the practice of using child soldiers? You never know . . .
So here's a two-pronged strategy for you: first, behave as if what you do matters. It does to God, if no one else (see Matthew 6:1-18 for the positive and Numbers 32;1-24 for the negative). Now, try treating other people as if what they do matters as well. That'll give impunity a kick in the pants!
What did you see today?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)